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

[DCarp1231]

On 7/6/2019 at 1:40 PM, Buc said:

 

 

 

 

Never realized how crappy of a look it was to not have a drop of yellow on the pants.

[msubulldog]

13 hours ago, Silver_Star said:

 

@Bill81361 Yes, that was 1964.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Up until the 80s, wasn't it common for teams introducing a new uniform to do so in the regular season, and wear the previous edition during the preseason?

[Carolingian Steamroller]

I'd say you could trace the Bears' look back to 1962. 

 

The "C" on the helmet is almost an after thought and both home and road jerseys have been unaltered (not counting the GSH) since them. Honestly, the NFL considers the color of the "C" so unimportant that they're letting the Bears wear the white "C" for a game against the Giants this year without it counting as an additional throwback/alternate. 

 

I count the alterations by the Colts as insignificant apart from the brief introduction of grey in the 80's. So the Colts' look is older it's just not continuous. 

[jgiff17]

Never liked the eagles change. Sucks so bad no matter the stripes or shadows. That color scheme is just too dark and depressing 

[IceCap]

If the question is “who has worn essentially the same look the longest?” then you cannot count the Colts. Adding grey/silver in the 80s is a major break with everything that came before and after. 

[Glover]

Obviously the Browns (unfortunately) changed their uniforms just a few years ago. But if not for that would they be in the conversation? Or do the 1984 uniforms take them out of contention? 

[IceCap]

12 minutes ago, selby56 said:

Obviously the Browns (unfortunately) changed their uniforms just a few years ago. But if not for that would they be in the conversation? Or do the 1984 uniforms take them out of contention? 

I would say so, yeah. The ‘84 Browns look was the pre-merchandise driven era version of the current identity. 

[Silver_Star]

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I would say so, yeah. The ‘84 Browns look was the pre-merchandise driven era version of the current identity. 

 

You call this a pre-merchandise era? It looks like utter garbage! Look at it along with the vomit and poop colors!

[IceCap]

6 minutes ago, Silver_Star said:

You call this a pre-merchandise era?

Um, yes?

Anything pre-mid/late 90s is the pre-merchandising era.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

On 7/8/2019 at 10:24 PM, BringBackTheVet said:

Not going to do this for NBA because most teams don't even have identities anymore,

 

The NBA champs on this are the Celtics, by a wide margin. No one else comes close — unless you want to grant the Lakers wide berth on the "feel" issue, and overlook the loss of the drop shadow and the changes in the number colour.

[BBTV]

19 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

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

 

4 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

If the question is “who has worn essentially the same look the longest?” then you cannot count the Colts. Adding grey/silver in the 80s is a major break with everything that came before and after. 

 

That's where I'm at with it.  I reconsidered based on BrandMooreArt's post, but I can't count it.  Part of their 'thing' is the simplicity of just blue and white.  Throw a third color in there and it's all mucked up.  It's even worse because of how forced it was.  Gray pants on a blue jersey with white helmet just stands out so much... plus it violates the 'rule'.  The gray inside the shoulder hoops on the white jersey makes no sense at all.  It's a different look.  

 

4 hours ago, selby56 said:

Obviously the Browns (unfortunately) changed their uniforms just a few years ago. But if not for that would they be in the conversation? Or do the 1984 uniforms take them out of contention? 

 

I don't know.  The orange numbers certainly would have if they made it to a regular-season game, but I'd have to see more of them with the orange outline to tell if it really changed up the look enough.  I'll give an example - I wouldn't have counted the Vikings tweaks of adding outlines to their numbers in the Chris Carter era uniforms.  To me, and to us, it's significant and could create pages of discussion, but at the end of the day, it's the same look and is consistent with their brand.  I'm not sure if the Browns change woud have been the same or not.  Doesn't really matter though.

 

7 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

I'd say you could trace the Bears' look back to 1962. 

 

The "C" on the helmet is almost an after thought and both home and road jerseys have been unaltered (not counting the GSH) since them. Honestly, the NFL considers the color of the "C" so unimportant that they're letting the Bears wear the white "C" for a game against the Giants this year without it counting as an additional throwback/alternate. 

 

It's a tough call, but I'm sticking with my belief that the orange helmet logo is a big deal.  It's essentially the logo, and took them from a plain-basic AF navy/white helmet to one with an orange and white logo.  I could still be talked out of this one if there's more discussion to be had, but for now, that's where I'm at.

 

30 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

The NBA champs on this are the Celtics, by a wide margin. No one else comes close, — unless you want to grant the Lakers wide berth on the "feel" issue, and overlook the loss of the drop shadow and the changes in the number colour.

 

Pretty much them and the Bulls are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head.  Lakers are a really tough call, since the main part of their brand is just the yellow at home with purple wordmark, so it's tough to really say if all the tweaks change the 'feel'.  I say that yes they do - especially since each one distinctly marks an era - Jerry West, Showtime, Shaq/Kobe, Lebron.  So Lakers would be out.   We can have that discussion in another thread if warranted... I'm just not sure how far it would go.

[Carolingian Steamroller]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

It's a tough call, but I'm sticking with my belief that the orange helmet logo is a big deal.  It's essentially the logo, and took them from a plain-basic AF navy/white helmet to one with an orange and white logo.  I could still be talked out of this one if there's more discussion to be had, but for now, that's where I'm at.

 

I think it's less of a deal based on 1. how it was introduced and 2. continuity within the rest of the uniform. 

 

1. The introduction of the original "C" in 1962 came about as George Halas was among the last teams in the NFL (apart from the Browns) to actually add a helmet logo. The logo was specifically plain white so it would show up against the dark helmet on black and white televisions. It didn't shift to orange and white until color TV's were more available. (Visibility for black and white television, I suspect, may also be the reason the thin white striping was add to the orange stripes on the home jersey.) So the shift to orange is more a direct result of the technology finally catching up to match the orange "C" practicable. It happened with a lot of NFL teams at that time, for example the Packers 1959 uniform is identical to their 1961 uniform apart from the addition on the helmet logo. Ditto for the 49ers, Giants, Lions, and Cardinals. 

 

2. The uniform itself has remained arguably unchanged since the early '50s when Bears switched to rounded numerals. The only addition is the aforementioned white details on the orange stripes. The shift to rounded numbers is the only major change to the uniforms since the 40's. It's actually quite a remarkable feat. To give some comparison, apart from a couple seasons in the early AFL Raiders and Oilers, the Chicago Bears were the only team to wear non-block numerals until the 1997 Denver Broncos (a full 35 years). 

[BBTV]

14 minutes ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 

I think it's less of a deal based on 1. how it was introduced and 2. continuity within the rest of the uniform. 

 

1. The introduction of the original "C" in 1962 came about as George Halas was among the last teams in the NFL (apart from the Browns) to actually add a helmet logo. The logo was specifically plain white so it would show up against the dark helmet on black and white televisions. It didn't shift to orange and white until color TV's were more available. (Visibility for black and white television, I suspect, may also be the reason the thin white striping was add to the orange stripes on the home jersey.) So the shift to orange is more a direct result of the technology finally catching up to match the orange "C" practicable. It happened with a lot of NFL teams at that time, for example the Packers 1959 uniform is identical to their 1961 uniform apart from the addition on the helmet logo. Ditto for the 49ers, Giants, Lions, and Cardinals. 

 

2. The uniform itself has remained arguably unchanged since the early '50s when Bears switched to rounded numerals. The only addition is the aforementioned white details on the orange stripes. The shift to rounded numbers is the only major change to the uniforms since the 40's. It's actually quite a remarkable feat. To give some comparison, apart from a couple seasons in the early AFL Raiders and Oilers, the Chicago Bears were the only team to wear non-block numerals until the 1997 Denver Broncos (a full 35 years). 

 

1. You could argue that their look goes back to '49 if we throw out the helmet.  I'm not concerned about the stripe trim.  I'm starting to sway... we'll see where this goes.

 

2.  Patriots moved away from block in 1995.  Eagles moved away from block in 1996.  Broncos/Steelers 1997.

 

 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

2 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

2.  Patriots moved away from block in 1995.  Eagles moved away from block in 1996.  Broncos/Steelers 1997.

 

OH my gosh you're right.  Forgot about those. Poor Drew Bledsoe we've forgotten ye, already. 

 

Backtracking to the helmet logo question, it there some moratorium on helmet logos as major changes in the early 60's? The league pushed really hard to add logos for branding purposes (especially since the league had recently gone away from leather shells) and I tend to look differently at logos slapped on the side (Packers, Giants, etc.) compared with ones more integral with the helmet style (Eagles, Rams, etc.). I wouldn't necessarily count the Colts as making a major change except for the shift from the horseshoes on the back of the helmet verses the side. Maybe that's the line, in the immediate changeover to plastic shells, it would take a specific stylistic adaptation beyond adding the sticker itself that counts. 

[Silver_Star]

4 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Um, yes?

Anything pre-mid/late 90s is the pre-merchandising era.

 

I thought the late 1980's (1987-1990) started that trend. Am I wrong?!!!

[IceCap]

Just now, Silver_Star said:

 

I thought the late 1980's (1987-1990) started that trend. Am I wrong?!!!

Merchandising didn't become a huge revenue stream until the mid/late 90s.

[Old School Fool]

Correction on the Raiders, the home uniform has been the same since 1963 and nothing more. Slight font variations have happened but other than that it's been that way since 1963.

 

The road uniform is where things get weird. They flirted with the idea of silver road numbers off and on in 1963, silver numbers were full time in 1964 and finally black numbers on the road jersey debuted full time in 1965, they switched back to silver road numbers in 1970 again, the current Raiders look on the road that we know of debuted in 1972 with the silver trim on the black numbers.

[Carolingian Steamroller]

8 hours ago, Old School Fool said:

Correction on the Raiders, the home uniform has been the same since 1963 and nothing more. Slight font variations have happened but other than that it's been that way since 1963.

 

The road uniform is where things get weird. They flirted with the idea of silver road numbers off and on in 1963, silver numbers were full time in 1964 and finally black numbers on the road jersey debuted full time in 1965, they switched back to silver road numbers in 1970 again, the current Raiders look on the road that we know of debuted in 1972 with the silver trim on the black numbers.

 

I don't necessarily hold the silver/black swap on the road numbers too strongly against them. (Frankly I think they ought to be permanent.) Especially given that there's has been absolute continuity nearly everywhere else. Given that, their continuity should date to 1963.