TheFallenHaveRisen

New York Jets unveil new uniforms

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, charliehustle said:

I don't hate this, but I can already hear all the people mocking the New York Triangles.

 

i thought that was the 2016 Knicks name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mmajeski06 said:

Has anyone mocked these up with the 90s Jet logo?

Better question: Has anyone taken their new “Gotham Green” and mocked it with the old uniforms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I may reserve total judgement on these helmets until we see them in different lighting situations

http://news.sportslogos.net/2019/04/04/new-york-jets-take-flight-unveil-new-logo-and-uniforms-for-2019/

Photos 10-12 look like they are black

 

Indoor games. Night games. Overcast games. Occasionally a sunny game. That candy apple chrome metallic look is definitely new school by nature. But I just don't see it ever really blending in with the jerseys green elements. 

 

8 minutes ago, jws008 said:

Better question: Has anyone taken their new “Gotham Green” and mocked it with the old uniforms?

The above link has a side by side with old green and New green on the actual logo. It's a few shades difference there. I'm suspecting the same would hold comparing jerseys. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be serious for a moment, and to make an analogy with their New York expansion brethren, these uniforms really strike me as the Jets version of the Mets “swoosh” tail uniforms — trying to evoke the past (but not really), while trying to be modern in a tacky way. For the Mets, the tacky was a silly swoosh; for the Jets it will be this silly triangle/wedge thing or the city name on the chest (or both). 

 

Hopefully, the Jets will realize with their next uniform update that they already have their signature look — it just needed proper shoulder stripes and a single green.

 

Given the choice between a “fixed” version of the last set, their 80s and 90s set, and this new one, I’ll take the first option every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NYC Cosmos said:

Pay NYC/NY State taxes and we're good. If the Bengals played across the state line in Kentucky, what would you say?

The Bengals still suck. Why should a team have to deal with more headaches just to be in New York proper? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NYC Cosmos said:

Really? So you mean because I was born and raised in Queens (and attended games in the old Shea Stadium, and suffered through the 70s with them) and live in Brooklyn, I wouldn't know this? Sorry. Jersey is Jersey. want to use the NYC name? Come practice here. Pay taxes. Then you can use the name New York. The Jets' offices are in Jersey. So is their practice facility. So is their stadium. Case closed. I will never, ever step into their stadium.

 Congrats, I live here too and disagree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jws008 said:

To be serious for a moment, and to make an analogy with their New York expansion brethren, these uniforms really strike me as the Jets version of the Mets “swoosh” tail uniforms — trying to evoke the past (but not really), while trying to be modern in a tacky way. For the Mets, the tacky was a silly swoosh; for the Jets it will be this silly triangle/wedge thing or the city name on the chest (or both). 

 

Hopefully, the Jets will realize with their next uniform update that they already have their signature look — it just needed proper shoulder stripes and a single green.

 

Given the choice between a “fixed” version of the last set, their 80s and 90s set, and this new one, I’ll take the first option every time.

You forgot the BFBS similarity as well!

 

But seriously, I don't disagree here.. a consistent green, proper shoulder stripes, and an updated logo is all the previous set really needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Like the new shade of green, especially the on the helmets
  • Don't like the pants stripe at all
  • Indifferent to the black alternates, but would probably like them better with green numbers outlined in white
  • Like the big NEW YORK wordmark on the jerseys.
  • I'm okay with the jersey stripes
  • I'm slightly curious how the helmets would look with white facemasks, but white mask would stand out badly when paird wit the all black uniform
  • Think they'll end up adding a second pair of green pants with black stripes at some point to be worn with the black jerseys
  • Until a team actually does it, I'm still convinced that NFL teams are not allowed to wear plain white socks. With that said the Jets green pants would probably look best if/when paired with their black socks

 

SN: The youth football club I played for wore/wears Kelly green, black and white. So needless to say I may find myself rooting for the Jets for that reason alone 😝

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far I really like the helmet. Uniforms will take a long time for me to get used to. Don't really hate them, it's just between the middle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jws008 said:

To be serious for a moment, and to make an analogy with their New York expansion brethren, these uniforms really strike me as the Jets version of the Mets “swoosh” tail uniforms — trying to evoke the past (but not really), while trying to be modern in a tacky way. For the Mets, the tacky was a silly swoosh; for the Jets it will be this silly triangle/wedge thing or the city name on the chest (or both). 

 

Hopefully, the Jets will realize with their next uniform update that they already have their signature look — it just needed proper shoulder stripes and a single green.

 

Given the choice between a “fixed” version of the last set, their 80s and 90s set, and this new one, I’ll take the first option every time.

My thoughts exactly. Many people don’t even remember the mid-90s set the Mets had. It was that forgettable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the green helmet and the green color in general is MUCH better. The helmet decal doesn't ruin it, but it does look a little goofy with the unnecessary football. Maybe it'll grow on me, but I would've just gone with the 80's logo to complete the fauxback.

The jersey's are meh to me. They're too modern and I don't care for the sharp points, but it's better than what Nike usually has to offer. The numbers are okay I think. The green is good here as well and I hate the BFBS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, insert name said:

My thoughts exactly. Many people don’t even remember the mid-90s set the Mets had. It was that forgettable. 

So were those Mets teams, I remember them as I went to a number of Mets games with my dad even though I'm a Yankee fan.  Truth be told, I actually liked the road jersey from that set although I think their current road is one of the two best in baseball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, NYC Cosmos said:

Really? So you mean because I was born and raised in Queens (and attended games in the old Shea Stadium, and suffered through the 70s with them) and live in Brooklyn, I wouldn't know this? Sorry. Jersey is Jersey. want to use the NYC name? Come practice here. Pay taxes. Then you can use the name New York. The Jets' offices are in Jersey. So is their practice facility. So is their stadium. Case closed. I will never, ever step into their stadium.

 

I live in New York too. I couldn't care less about what taxes the Jets pay (or more to the point, what state is giving them tax breaks and subsidies). I couldn't care less which side of an artificial border set up in 1664 by an English prince that the Jets play on. They play in the heart of the New York metro area. They play 6 miles from Times Square - closer than Shea Stadium was, FWIW. They're as much a New York City team as the Cowboys are a Dallas team, or the Redskins a Washington team, or the Dolphins a Miami team. I don't know why this argument only comes up about the Jets and Giants when you don't hear anyone crowing about the "Maryland Redskins" or "Arlington Cowboys."

 

Teams represent metro areas, first and foremost. Fandom (at least in pro sports) generally doesn't die at a state line or city line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, NYC Cosmos said:

Pay NYC/NY State taxes and we're good. If the Bengals played across the state line in Kentucky, what would you say?

 

That's fair.  The irony is that probably the only way both they and the Giants were to stay here -and thus pay those taxes- was if they were gifted those same taxpayer funds for a new stadium.  It goes all the way back to Koch's refusal to work with them when they first left.   

 

So Jersey gets that, but they're also on the hook for that new stadium.  The economics of the NFL now are such that everyone other than the league itself loses.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, kroywen said:

 

I live in New York too. I couldn't care less about what taxes the Jets pay (or more to the point, what state is giving them tax breaks and subsidies). I couldn't care less which side of an artificial border set up in 1664 by an English prince that the Jets play on. They play in the heart of the New York metro area. They play 6 miles from Times Square - closer than Shea Stadium was, FWIW. They're as much a New York City team as the Cowboys are a Dallas team, or the Redskins a Washington team, or the Dolphins a Miami team. I don't know why this argument only comes up about the Jets and Giants when you don't hear anyone crowing about the "Maryland Redskins" or "Arlington Cowboys."

 

Teams represent metro areas, first and foremost. Fandom (at least in pro sports) generally doesn't die at a state line or city line.

 

Actually, this one does come up occasionally.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, kroywen said:

 

I live in New York too. I couldn't care less about what taxes the Jets pay (or more to the point, what state is giving them tax breaks and subsidies). I couldn't care less which side of an artificial border set up in 1664 by an English prince that the Jets play on. They play in the heart of the New York metro area. They play 6 miles from Times Square - closer than Shea Stadium was, FWIW. They're as much a New York City team as the Cowboys are a Dallas team, or the Redskins a Washington team, or the Dolphins a Miami team. I don't know why this argument only comes up about the Jets and Giants when you don't hear anyone crowing about the "Maryland Redskins" or "Arlington Cowboys."

 

Teams represent metro areas, first and foremost. Fandom (at least in pro sports) generally doesn't die at a state line or city line.

 

I couldn't agree more.  It seems to me this argument is only applied to the Jets and Giants because of the duality of the "New York" name.  Most assume the name means New York State so "Why aren't they called New Jersey because they play there.  Buffalo is the only New York team."  But those who are from here know the name refers to New York City, so like you said, they're playing in as close a proximity to the City as possible without actually being within the five boroughs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit deception. I'd gone with the concorde shape all over the place, would hve been very speedy and bit retro at same time.

 

But, could have been worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.