nfl New York Jets unveil new uniforms

[Carolingian Steamroller]

Just want to reiterate that this look turned out really well. If it didn't have white socks it would be bad but the extra white of the socks and undersleeves looks really fresh to my eyes. 

 

You don't have to agree but I think its something classic looking that's also not been seen from the Jets in their history. 

 

[Ovie832]

last thing about the classic jet uniforms..

 

reebok & Nike really messed them up.(Nike more so with the color issues).

 

loved the original starters that included the thick band/cuff stripe on the sleeves that was much more accurate to the Namath era design. 
Once reebok took over it just defaulted to cuff piping. 

 

 

 

this was a detail that disappeared over time and ruined the uniqueness of the stripe design.

[JayMac]

My issue with the Namath Era 2.0 was that it was a shell of itself by the end. I loved the uniform so much in the beginning that I had gotten a Curtis Martin jersey. But, IIRC, Reebok messed up the striping and Nike ruined the color. The striping was nothing like the SB set and the green color was a drab olive. 

 

The new set is not even close to being perfect but it definitely is better than the now old Browns set, the new Falcons set, and a few others.

[Ovie832]

8 minutes ago, JayMac said:

My issue with the Namath Era 2.0 was that it was a shell of itself by the end. I loved the uniform so much in the beginning that I had gotten a Curtis Martin jersey. But, IIRC, Reebok messed up the striping and Nike ruined the color. The striping was nothing like the SB set and the green color was a drab olive. 

 

The new set is not even close to being perfect but it definitely is better than the now old Browns set, the new Falcons set, and a few others.

 Wish I could ask Parcells and the design team why they went so dark. I’m sure it was just a late 90’s influenced decision based on every one else being in muddy colors 

[JayMac]

1 minute ago, Ovie832 said:

 Wish I could ask Parcells and the design team why they went so dark. I’m sure it was just a late 90’s influenced decision based on every one else being in muddy colors 

I'm pretty sure you just answered your own question. That was all the rage 20 years ago. The green was not the green that they used for the SB set but at least it wasn't olive.

[shiznit1083]

3 hours ago, jws008 said:

I have two simple responses:

 

1. Being called a "traditionalist" on this board is like the whole "OK, boomer" thing on the inter webs -- meaning it's a way to react negative to someone's opinion without any real evidence behind your counterpoint (other than "old" automatically = "bad").

 

2. If the Jets new set is so peak uniform, why did the Saskatchewan Roughriders ever change away from it in the first place?

 

 

 

No, it's a pushback against people who believe every team should have a block font and shoulder or sleeve stripes and grey facemasks. A traditionalist feels the need to have every new uniform conform to some rigid idea of "football back in my day" and some warped sense of nostalgia.

 

Also, if you can't see the difference between the roughriders jerseys and the jets then any team in green and black will look the same to you.

[jws008]

1 hour ago, shiznit1083 said:

 

No, it's a pushback against people who believe every team should have a block font and shoulder or sleeve stripes and grey facemasks. A traditionalist feels the need to have every new uniform conform to some rigid idea of "football back in my day" and some warped sense of nostalgia.

Well, I don't think that's really the opinion of most traditionalists on this board; and you're kind of making my point for me: I don't get that impression from any "traditionalist" who regularly posts here; in fact, I think 99% of the folks you might label as traditionalist would find the whole uniform discussion boring if every team used block fonts, grey facemarks, and traditional shoulder and sleeve stripes.

 

(And yes, that was mostly a cheap joke on the Jets new set).

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, shiznit1083 said:

No, it's a pushback against people who believe every team should have a block font and shoulder or sleeve stripes and grey facemasks. A traditionalist feels the need to have every new uniform conform to some rigid idea of "football back in my day" and some warped sense of nostalgia.

First off, I'm someone whose opinions could be called "traditionalist" and "my day" was the mid 90s-2010s. So get over yourself, because liking traditional designs has nothing to to do with nostalgia.

If all you have to debate someone with is to call them a "traditionalist" then you really don't have an argument. Find some other talking points. Raise your game.

Secondly, the sort of person you're describing? I'm not sure that person exists. It's a strawman.

 

1 hour ago, shiznit1083 said:

Also, if you can't see the difference between the roughriders jerseys and the jets then any team in green and black will look the same to you.

Nah, there are differences sure. Still, the Roughriders were doing the "kelly green with ugly white panels and black trim" look while the Jets were still butchering the Namath design.

 

Thing is the "lol the Jets look like the Roughriders" originally was a tongue in cheek thing. At least on my part. Sort of like how everyone has fun with the Eskimos and Packers looking alike despite notable differences.

Then some people started getting REALLY defensive about it, like the joke hurt them on a personal level. And that's funny to me. The whole "fans of Team X get overly defensive about new, controversial uniforms" has been an observable phenomenon since at least the Jags' two-toned helmet set in 2013, and it's a sentiment I just don't get/find hilarious.

I was among the loudest critics when the Maple Leafs ditched their waist striping during the EDGE changeover and when the Blue Jays embraced black and graphite of all things. So when I see people get overly defensive at criticisms of uniforms that are at least a bit controversial, much less bad? I just don't understand. And when people get upset at a tongue in cheek joke? Yeah, I'll pinch that nerve now and then. Like...if a joke about the Jets and Roughriders gets you upset? Calm down.

 

 

[schlim]

4 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

You don't have to agree but I think its something classic looking that's also not been seen from the Jets in their history. 

 

Yup, this black set really ties the whole rebrand together. It's what I think of when I think of the Jets. It turns out it was even what I thought of the Jets before they introduced a black jersey too, I just didn't know it until Nike made it clear this is what the Jets are about.

 

Classic!

[Ovie832]

15 minutes ago, schlim said:

 

Yup, this black set really ties the whole rebrand together. It's what I think of when I think of the Jets. It turns out it was even what I thought of the Jets before they introduced a black jersey too, I just didn't know it until Nike made it clear this is what the Jets are about.

 

Classic!

No matter how many times I look at them... I still get upset. 

[monkeypower]

57 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Thing is the "lol the Jets look like the Roughriders" originally was a tongue in cheek thing. At least on my part. Sort of like how everyone has fun with the Eskimos and Packers looking alike despite notable differences.

Then some people started getting REALLY defensive about it, like the joke hurt them on a personal level. And that's funny to me. The whole "fans of Team X get overly defensive about new, controversial uniforms" has been an observable phenomenon since at least the Jags' two-toned helmet set in 2013, and it's a sentiment I just don't get/find hilarious.

I was among the loudest critics when the Maple Leafs ditched their waist striping during the EDGE changeover and when the Blue Jays embraced black and graphite of all things. So when I see people get overly defensive at criticisms of uniforms that are at least a bit controversial, much less bad? I just don't understand. And when people get upset at a tongue in cheek joke? Yeah, I'll pinch that nerve now and then. Like...if a joke about the Jets and Roughriders gets you upset? Calm down.

 

This isn't a case of Eskimos/Packers thing, because they do actually look alike and that has been the history of both teams. They've always (well, you know, relatively always or at least in their most established looks) looked the same and I would assume will always look the same until the heat death of the universe. I also don't think I've heard any jokes about the Packers and Eskimos looking alike, despite the occasional observation that the teams look the same.

 

Nobody here is getting defensive over the criticism from people thinking the chest stripes sometimes look bad on linemen or the monochrome or what have you. The defensiveness of the New Saskatchewan Roughjets thing isn't a defence of controversial uniforms, it's defensiveness over a tired, unfunny (and frankly inaccurate) joke.

[Carolingian Steamroller]

1 hour ago, Ovie832 said:

No matter how many times I look at them... I still get upset. 

 

The black over black should go bye bye. 

 

Green over green with white socks at home. White over white with green socks on the road.

[monkeypower]

3 minutes ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 

The black over black should go bye bye. 

 

Green over green with white socks at home. White over white with green socks on the road.

 

I think I'd like to see the green socks worn with the black set so it's g/b/b/g, including the helmet.

[Pizzaman7294]

8 hours ago, Ovie832 said:

last thing about the classic jet uniforms..

 

reebok & Nike really messed them up.(Nike more so with the color issues).

 

loved the original starters that included the thick band/cuff stripe on the sleeves that was much more accurate to the Namath era design. 
Once reebok took over it just defaulted to cuff piping. 

 

 

 

this was a detail that disappeared over time and ruined the uniqueness of the stripe design.

 

Ironically just mentioned this in the Patriots thread. Reebook and Nike produced them by using UCLA stripes, which I believe was not the original intention. 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

The original pattern on the Jets sleeves was actually in 3 parts.

 

The bottom bit of green stripe looks abnormally wide because on later versions, the sleeves got cut off. 

 

If the Jets really wanted to be accurate, there would be a wider gap between the numbers block and the stripe.

 

 

See edited version of @Sport's mockup.

 

[Ovie832]

11 minutes ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

The original pattern on the Jets sleeves was actually in 3 parts.

 

The bottom bit of green stripe looks abnormally wide because on later versions, the sleeves got cut off. 

 

If the Jets really wanted to be accurate, there would be a wider gap between the numbers block and the stripe.

 

 

See edited version of @Sport's mockup.

 

Exactly. 
 

Pre-reebok also used the same elastic material for the bottom stripe that made it look far more vintage as well. (Even though they still messed up the striping above the numbers)  

 

[AstroCree]

7 hours ago, Ovie832 said:

last thing about the classic jet uniforms..

 

reebok & Nike really messed them up.(Nike more so with the color issues).

 

loved the original starters that included the thick band/cuff stripe on the sleeves that was much more accurate to the Namath era design. 
Once reebok took over it just defaulted to cuff piping. 
 

 

this was a detail that disappeared over time and ruined the uniqueness of the stripe design.

You can thank the shorter sleeves players stated to wear. Took a hit on the original design and they never bothered to fix it. The shorter strip started to happened even under Nike in 99 and 2000.

[Ovie832]

8 minutes ago, insert name said:

You can thank the shorter sleeves players stated to wear. Took a hit on the original design and they never bothered to fix it. The shorter strip started to happened even under Nike in 99 and 2000.

Oh yeah I know.  I just think they should’ve tried to adjust to the times in 2012 when the Nike changeover happened with a more accurate template 

[IceCap]

3 hours ago, monkeypower said:

The defensiveness of the New Saskatchewan Roughjets thing isn't a defence of controversial uniforms, it's defensiveness over a tired, unfunny (and frankly inaccurate) joke.

And see...it's not that inaccurate. 

Both teams use a lighter green (let's just say kelly for simplicity's sake), go mono, have green helmets, and use white panels and numbers with black trim. 

Are they exact copies of each other? No, but then again neither are the Eskimos and Packers. 

 

And I mean...we talk about what "normal" people say all the time here. There are people who can't tell the difference between the 2015-2020 Browns uniforms and the set they just released. Hell, I overheard someone here in Tampa remark that he liked the XFL's Vipers' unis because they reminded him of the Packers! And of course my favourite, the time my mom confused the Black Jays-era Blue Jays logo with the Seattle Seahawks 

 

So in that context are the Roughriders and Jets REALLY beyond confusion for people who aren't uni nerds? 

 

The thing is though...that yes. People like us? We can easily tell the differences. Which is why I was mostly kidding when I first brought it up. 

Yet people insisting "no! it's totally not and how dare you make fun of my team!" just...made me laugh. Like Jags fans who insisted the two toned helmets were totally good did. 

[Ovie832]

old wordmark logo in the new oval and using the new sport green (gotham).   Imo it was all they had to do to the primary logo. (As to no ones surprise I hate the new one they use now)