BringBackTheVet

NFL: Who's had the same look the longest?

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Silver_Star said:

Other than that!

 

Pretty sure you didn’t read my criteria. If yours is different than mine then that’s fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Silver_Star said:


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah it's whatever!

Cowboys added the black trim in 1981 when they dabbled into navy blue jerseys with silver numbers and stripes with white trim on both numbers and stripes. The Cowboys roads changed since 1981, pal. The only thing that didn't change was their home whites.

 

 

No, the black trim has been there since the 1960s.

 

Here's an early 70's Staubach jersey. The black trim is clearly visible.

 

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the question becomes if the move away from the serifed font to the current thicker-block one counts as a significant change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Now the question becomes if the move away from the serifed font to the current thicker-block one counts as a significant change.

Both are a block font.  In my opinion, it is less of a change than the Steelers font change in '97.  If you don't count the Steelers, then I say  don't count Dallas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2019 at 11:46 AM, BringBackTheVet said:

Eagles: need help here - does 1996 count, or does the 2003 redesign count as the start of the current uniform?

 

I 100% say "1996-current" is fine. Teams made tweaks on a whim back then (technically, the Jags wore three different jerseys in their first four seasons).

 

As a random aside, I always found it funny how near-identical the changes were between the Eagles and 49ers uniforms in 1996.

Share this post


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

Both are a block font.  In my opinion, it is less of a change than the Steelers font change in '97.  If you don't count the Steelers, then I say  don't count Dallas.

 

is it safe to say that I'm the only one that doesn't consider the Steelers font change a fundamental change to their look?  It's still single color white on black, it sorta matches the helmet numbers that already existed, and the rest of the uniform was unchanged (save for the logo patch but that's not a big deal... or is it?)  If people want to say that the Steelers tried to "modernize" their look by changing the numbers, then I guess I'll concede the point.  I didn't see it that way at the time, but I get it if people do.

 

The only reason I'd even consider it for the Cowboys is since (at least to me) the classic Cowboys photos usually have Staubach wearing a serifed 2, so to me, that style is almost synonymous with them. 

 

6 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

 

I 100% say "1996-current" is fine. Teams made tweaks on a whim back then (technically, the Jags wore three different jerseys in their first four seasons).

 

As a random aside, I always found it funny how near-identical the changes were between the Eagles and 49ers uniforms in 1996.

 

Eagles changes were way more drastic than 49ers.  49ers tweaked their logo, while the Eagles came up with a completely new one.  49ers darkened the red a bit (it wasn't as dramatic as made out to be) while the Eagles came out with an entirely-new color.  49ers could say that the shadow was an homage to the throwbacks they wore in 94, while the Eagles new uniform shared nothing with any prior sets. I think the Eagles '96 home/road were pretty much a disaster... but the 2003 changes fixed nearly everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2019 at 12:59 PM, BringBackTheVet said:

So for the Eagles... below is the original 1996 uniform (it's the same midnight green despite how it looks in this photo.)

 

Note that the home uniform has no trim, a asymmetrical wordmark under the collar, numbers have only one outline, and pants have traditional striping.

They added black trim to both uniforms and put the logo on the white one the next year.  They also very rarely ever wore those green pants.

In 2003 they modified the pants stripe, switched to the symmetrical wordmark, added a charcoal outline to the numbers with a black border and shadow effect.

 

Like I said, I think the 2003 redesign cleaned it up so much that it counts as a change, but that might be because I'm so close to it and watch them all the time and notice all those details.  Since the helmet, color, and fonts never changed, I could see counting 1996 as the berth of this era.

 

1823898_032917-wpvi-eagles-model-uniform   245819.jpg?w=594  hi-res-52147496_crop_north.jpg?h=533&w=8 960x0.jpg%3Ffit=scale

Wow they really need to get rid of the outline/shadow... The original numbers look so much cleaner. The other 2003 changes can stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, slats7 said:

 

No, the black trim has been there since the 1960s.

 

Here's an early 70's Staubach jersey. The black trim is clearly visible.

 

spacer.png

 

No, that has to be a replica. If that is the real thing, then I guess 1965 then. If so, then the black trim was on the dark royal blue jerseys as well. Two white stripes with black border. I have to pull up the Gridiron Database to see a closer look again.

 

Oh I just saw, @BringBackTheVet post. Ok, you are right about the black trim on the stripes. So that means the dark royal blue ones had it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

is it safe to say that I'm the only one that doesn't consider the Steelers font change a fundamental change to their look?  It's still single color white on black, it sorta matches the helmet numbers that already existed, and the rest of the uniform was unchanged (save for the logo patch but that's not a big deal... or is it?)  If people want to say that the Steelers tried to "modernize" their look by changing the numbers, then I guess I'll concede the point.  I didn't see it that way at the time, but I get it if people do.

 

They also changed the NOBs from condensed block to a condensed Futura to match the numbers. I feel like there's a big enough difference between no-nonsense angular athletic block and curvy modernist Futura to call it a fundamental change to the Steelers, and not one for the better. If it were just going from one set of block numbers to another, like, uh, the Packers one with the little quirk in the 5 to one without it, I would write that off, but Futura is a significant departure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Silver_Star said:

 

No, that has to be a replica. If that is the real thing, then I guess 1965 then. If so, then the black trim was on the dark royal blue jerseys as well. Two white stripes with black border. I have to pull up the Gridiron Database to see a closer look again.

 

Oh I just saw, @BringBackTheVet post. Ok, you are right about the black trim on the stripes. So that means the dark royal blue ones had it too.

 

You are correct.

spacer.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, slats7 said:

 

You are correct.

spacer.png

 

 

 

I knew it. That one was 1964 too, right?

For the longest time I always thought they were plain without a black border on both jerseys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Silver_Star said:

 

 

I knew it. That one was 1964 too, right?

For the longest time I always thought they were plain without a black border on both jerseys!

 

Yes, since '64. I'm not sure why a narrow black strip bothers a lot of fans. The green pants are waaaaaaay worse. They really affect my enjoyment of the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, slats7 said:

 

Yes, since '64. I'm not sure why a narrow black strip bothers a lot of fans. The green pants are waaaaaaay worse. They really affect my enjoyment of the team.

 

Why? Oh well, if they tried to do metallic blue like 1964-1980, it would look too much like Tennessee's blue pants on navy blue lids and jerseys. The metallic CYAN (it's basically blue-green or green-blue) brings the blue out. I just wish they went with navy blue on both in 1981 if they were going to go that route and just use the metallic blue-green from 1981-1994.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I adore the origin story of the silver-green pants, which is that a man named "Tex" spotted the upholstery inside a Car That Thinks It's A Boat and decided that was the color he needed. Beats the hell out of focus groups, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that the first time in major pro North American sports that blue and black were used together like that? For the most part, blue and black weren’t used together - it seems like it wasn’t until the 00s and all the BFBS that the combo started to be “normal”.  Examples being the XFL Hitmen, Royals, Mets, Lions, Knick’s, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, slats7 said:

 

You are correct.

spacer.png

 

3 stripes on the blue jerseys vs 2 on the white jerseys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

List updated.  Not going to do this for NBA because most teams don't even have identities anymore, and it would really only be 3 or 4 that would count for more than a few years.  NHL similar, as the Edge era was a reset button for a lot of teams, and even teams like the Devils have messed up their look.  Just wouldn't be enough looks that are 20+ years old like in the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2019 at 12:13 PM, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Thanks - I completely forgot about that.  Sure feels like a big change - I'll likely downgrade them to '87, which is a real shame because the change was unnecessary.  I'm pretty lenient when it comes to pants - for example, Washington - but this introduced an entirely new color.  Curious what others think.

 

i disagree. this feels like "essentially the same uniform" to me. my vote goes to 1957 for the Colts

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.