nfl New York Jets unveil new uniforms

[AstroCree]

5 minutes ago, MCM0313 said:

Really? Did the New York fanbase scoff when the Giants won two Super Bowls under Bill Parcells because their helmets said GIANTS? How about the Jets? Did the fans not root for the Gastineau et al. group because their helmets had their nickname without their location? You act like no New York team has ever emphasized its nickname on its uniforms - let alone that the Jets themselves did it for 20 seasons, and the Giants for longer than that. I think the fans will be okay with anything that doesn't look like overdesigned Nike garbage.

Yeah but they’ve since reverted back to their classic designs. Anything that isn’t classic or 80s will probably not be well received. 

[MCM0313]

26 minutes ago, insert name said:

Yeah but they’ve since reverted back to their classic designs. Anything that isn’t classic or 80s will probably not be well received. 

I dunno. I admittedly am from Ohio, but the jet logo seems popular online. The organization likes it, Jamal Adams obviously likes it, and I think it could be updated to look a bit more modern like they did to the Namath-era logo.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

59 minutes ago, MCM0313 said:

Did the New York fanbase scoff when the Giants won two Super Bowls under Bill Parcells because their helmets said GIANTS?

 

Well, when the Giants won the Super Bowl in 1987 and 1991 with the generic helmet logo, the City refused to throw them a parade. In 1987, then-mayor Koch even called them a "foreign team".

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-01-15/news/8701040596_1_mayor-koch-giants-headquarters-ticker-tape-parade

 

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-01-28/sports/sp-1261_1_giants-stadium

 

But by their Super Bowl victories in 2008 and 2012, wearing their correct logo, the Giants got the full parade New York City treatment that had gone to the Yankees so many times recently.

 

Anyway, that's just an historical aside. The Giants are by far the bigger team, with a fan base that covers New York City, northern New Jersey, and southern New England. The Jets' fan base is far more New York than New Jersey; it stretches onto Long Island, the only place where the Jets are arguably more popular than the Giants.

 

Still, I strongly doubt that Jet fans are pining for any sort of "New York" mark. The italic "NY" in the football is just fine as a secondary logo within the current design scheme; but it would be extremely cheesy as a helmet logo.

 

By contrast, the Jets' 1980s wordmark is beloved. And it is aesthetically superior to any other logo — primary or secondary — in their history.

 

This logo is conceptually sound, incorporating a jet's tail. It is sleek and powerful. It is simple yet identifiable. It looks great on the helmet and on a cap.

 

If the Jets don't go back to that helmet logo, they will be making a huge mistake.

 

 

[mmajeski06]

Never under estimate the power of nostalgia as well - the Namath-era jerseys brought back great memories for my dad when they introduced it in 1998. 

 

Now 20 years later, the 80's and early 90's uniform is the one I'm nostalgic for. It reminds me of Section 312 with my grandpa in the early 90s. 

[MN Wilkings]

3 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Well, when the Giants won the Super Bowl in 1987 and 1991 with the generic helmet logo, the City refused to throw them a parade. In 1987, then-mayor Koch even called them a "foreign team".

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-01-15/news/8701040596_1_mayor-koch-giants-headquarters-ticker-tape-parade

 

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-01-28/sports/sp-1261_1_giants-stadium

 

But by their Super Bowl victories in 2008 and 2012, wearing their correct logo, the Giants got the full parade New York City treatment that had gone to the Yankees so many times recently.

 

Anyway, that's just an historical aside. The Giants are by far the bigger team, with a fan base that covers New York City, northern New Jersey, and southern New England. The Jets' fan base is far more New York than New Jersey; it stretches onto Long Island, the only place where the Jets are arguably more popular than the Giants.

 

Still, I strongly doubt that Jet fans are pining for any sort of "New York" mark. The italic "NY" in the football is just fine as a secondary logo within the current design scheme; but it would be extremely cheesy as a helmet logo.

 

By contrast, the Jets' 1980s wordmark is beloved. And it is aesthetically superior to any other logo — primary or secondary — in their history.

 

This logo is conceptually sound, incorporating a jet's tail. It is sleek and powerful. It is simple yet identifiable. It looks great on the helmet and on a cap.

 

If the Jets don't go back to that helmet logo, they will be making a huge mistake.

 

 

I have too many issues with that ‘80s logo. First, the vertical strokes are too thick compared to the horizontal. The J has no curve to it and reads as Sets with the jet trail. The lower part of the e extends further than the rest of the letter. The s looks like a backwards z. Finally, the jet doesn’t look like a jet without the context of the logo literally saying “Sets”... I mean “Jets.” Even with that telling me it should be a jet, it looks more like a paper airplane to me.

[andrewharrington]

10 hours ago, MN Wilkings said:

I have too many issues with that ‘80s logo. First, the vertical strokes are too thick compared to the horizontal. The J has no curve to it and reads as Sets with the jet trail. The lower part of the e extends further than the rest of the letter. The s looks like a backwards z. Finally, the jet doesn’t look like a jet without the context of the logo literally saying “Sets”... I mean “Jets.” Even with that telling me it should be a jet, it looks more like a paper airplane to me.

 

Each of those issues are integral to the presence and connotation of the mark. Heavier verticals are common in short, wide typefaces. It improves the stature and proportion of them. It simply wouldn’t hold up with verticals that are much thinner than these, unless the letters were also made considerably narrower.

 

However, the low, wide horizontal composition is what connotes speed and thrust. Likewise, that’s the reason there’s no curve to the J. It would also look silly mixed with the horizontal design motif of the other letterforms.

 

The botttoms of the E and S extend farther (a common practice, btw, it’s just exaggerated here for effect) in order to 1. reinforce the horizontal, and 2. fill in the negative area around the T.

 

Claiming it reads as “Sets” is a big stretch, especially in context. Thousands of typefaces have an S with an angled spine. That doesn’t mean it looks like a Z. In fact, the Z in this typeface would like have a more vertical diagonal than the one on the S.

 

The little jet could use some work.

[MCM0313]

14 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Well, when the Giants won the Super Bowl in 1987 and 1991 with the generic helmet logo, the City refused to throw them a parade. In 1987, then-mayor Koch even called them a "foreign team".

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-01-15/news/8701040596_1_mayor-koch-giants-headquarters-ticker-tape-parade

 

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-01-28/sports/sp-1261_1_giants-stadium

 

But by their Super Bowl victories in 2008 and 2012, wearing their correct logo, the Giants got the full parade New York City treatment that had gone to the Yankees so many times recently.

 

Anyway, that's just an historical aside. The Giants are by far the bigger team, with a fan base that covers New York City, northern New Jersey, and southern New England. The Jets' fan base is far more New York than New Jersey; it stretches onto Long Island, the only place where the Jets are arguably more popular than the Giants.

 

Still, I strongly doubt that Jet fans are pining for any sort of "New York" mark. The italic "NY" in the football is just fine as a secondary logo within the current design scheme; but it would be extremely cheesy as a helmet logo.

 

By contrast, the Jets' 1980s wordmark is beloved. And it is aesthetically superior to any other logo — primary or secondary — in their history.

 

This logo is conceptually sound, incorporating a jet's tail. It is sleek and powerful. It is simple yet identifiable. It looks great on the helmet and on a cap.

 

If the Jets don't go back to that helmet logo, they will be making a huge mistake.

 

 

I don't think league rules allow reverting directly back to an old logo without any revision at all, but I certainly hope they can make a tasteful update to the 1978-97 logo while staying within the same font family the franchise has always used. (That's one of the underrated things about the Jets - since adopting their identity, they've changed their logo font very little, even while changing their primary logo and script several times.)

 

In my book, the name "Jets" should be paired with a sleek and exciting visual identity, and while they've never quite gotten there with the uniforms, that logo was a perfect start for that kind of identity.

 

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

53 minutes ago, MCM0313 said:

I don't think league rules allow reverting directly back to an old logo without any revision at all

 

Isn't that an NBA rule (see Hornets)?  I think the Jets and Giants both reverted to previous logos with no modifications.

[MCM0313]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Isn't that an NBA rule (see Hornets)?  I think the Jets and Giants both reverted to previous logos with no modifications.

In the Jets' case, they darkened the green and rounded off the corners of the Namath-era logo. Not completely sure about the Giants. At the very least theirs is a little closer to being unmodified. 

 

I know about the NBA rule but always thought the NFL had something like it. Maybe it applies only to uniforms, not logos.

[dont care]

1 hour ago, MCM0313 said:

In the Jets' case, they darkened the green and rounded off the corners of the Namath-era logo. Not completely sure about the Giants. At the very least theirs is a little closer to being unmodified. 

 

I know about the NBA rule but always thought the NFL had something like it. Maybe it applies only to uniforms, not logos.

No it’s just an NBA rule, none exist for the NFL, just most times teams will intentionally change a few small details when they go back to a throwback full time just to set them apart. Otherwise the rams wouldn’t be able to use their throwbacks as their primary home uniform this year

[MCM0313]

1 hour ago, dont care said:

No it’s just an NBA rule, none exist for the NFL, just most times teams will intentionally change a few small details when they go back to a throwback full time just to set them apart. Otherwise the rams wouldn’t be able to use their throwbacks as their primary home uniform this year

Really? Well, that's cool at least that the NFL doesn't have that restriction. Now if we could get them to drop that stupid one-helmet rule...

 

As far as the Jets go, I've said this already in this thread, but in my opinion the best they will realistically do is something in the neighborhood of the Jamal Adams pic, maybe with a tiny bit of black trim. And I think that would be fantastic, especially if the green is as bright as in the picture.

[duxrcool048]

On 8/18/2018 at 7:11 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Well, when the Giants won the Super Bowl in 1987 and 1991 with the generic helmet logo, the City refused to throw them a parade. In 1987, then-mayor Koch even called them a "foreign team".

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-01-15/news/8701040596_1_mayor-koch-giants-headquarters-ticker-tape-parade

 

http://articles.latimes.com/1987-01-28/sports/sp-1261_1_giants-stadium

 

But by their Super Bowl victories in 2008 and 2012, wearing their correct logo, the Giants got the full parade New York City treatment that had gone to the Yankees so many times recently.

 

Anyway, that's just an historical aside. The Giants are by far the bigger team, with a fan base that covers New York City, northern New Jersey, and southern New England. The Jets' fan base is far more New York than New Jersey; it stretches onto Long Island, the only place where the Jets are arguably more popular than the Giants.

 

Still, I strongly doubt that Jet fans are pining for any sort of "New York" mark. The italic "NY" in the football is just fine as a secondary logo within the current design scheme; but it would be extremely cheesy as a helmet logo.

 

By contrast, the Jets' 1980s wordmark is beloved. And it is aesthetically superior to any other logo — primary or secondary — in their history.

 

This logo is conceptually sound, incorporating a jet's tail. It is sleek and powerful. It is simple yet identifiable. It looks great on the helmet and on a cap.

 

If the Jets don't go back to that helmet logo, they will be making a huge mistake.

 

 

Sorry, but that just seems like opinion. You can't speak for the masses. I do like the 80's era logo and colors, and I'm not even a Jets fan. But I don't think that what they're wearing now is really that horrible. Also, I don't really see any reason why the Color Rush should see any praise. White facemask? Some different color socks? Big whoop. But that doesn't mean that's the consensus.

[Gothamite]

On 8/19/2018 at 12:49 PM, MCM0313 said:

I don't think league rules allow reverting directly back to an old logo without any revision at all

 

Why do you think that?

[MCM0313]

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Why do you think that?

That was just an impression I had. Thankfully it seems I was mistaken. Must have conflated info I read about the NBA with the NFL.

[joekono]

I'm seeing a lot of neon green in NIKE clothing the last few years. I wouldn't be surprised if NIKE does a Kelly green and neon trim look.

[kimball]

16 hours ago, MCM0313 said:

That was just an impression I had. Thankfully it seems I was mistaken. Must have conflated info I read about the NBA with the NFL.

 

That's the impression I've had too. When the Vikings went back to a more traditional set, there were significant changes in the font and striping to make it different. Even the 49ers had slight changes when they went back to their current look. 

 

But, as for the NBA they've been very lenient with what was very much a policy during the Stern years. You now have the Sixers, Jazz, Hawks, Kings (sorta) and Pistons going back to older logos. Granted with some modernization, but not much.

[Teal]

21 hours ago, joekono said:

I'm seeing a lot of neon green in NIKE clothing the last few years. I wouldn't be surprised if NIKE does a Kelly green and neon trim look.

Oh hell no.

[Gothamite]

I'm expecting a color change, but don't think they'll go neon.

 

I do think, however, that the chances of them adding BFBS are somewhere between "A sure thing" and "Of   ing course they will."

[KGeeX5]

12 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

I'm expecting a color change, but don't think they'll go neon.

 

I do think, however, that the chances of them adding BFBS are somewhere between "A sure thing" and "Of   ing course they will."

 

Yeah, I fear they'll add black or the dark grey in there somewhere. 

[MCM0313]

13 minutes ago, KGeeX5 said:

 

Yeah, I fear they'll add black or the dark grey in there somewhere. 

I don't care if they add black, as long as it doesn't end up overtaking green as the default color. Their 1990-97 use of black was tasteful and looked good, and I'll even venture to say they can add more black than that and still look decent - just as long as Nike remembers that the Jets are, and have always been (since adopting the name Jets anyway), a GREEN team, and doesn't try to change that fact.

 

As far as grey - NO. The Eagles own green and silver/grey. On a related note, the Eagles would look much better if they just elevated silver back to secondary status and dialed back on the black, but I know that's just wishful thinking.