Gothamite 20,285 Posted July 20, 2019 On 7/15/2019 at 7:02 PM, WSU151 said: Kinda works with teams that only wear one color and white. Agreed. The Packers ruined their road jerseys when they decided to replace their distinctive road striping with an inverse of the home stripes. 6 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tajmccall 380 Posted July 20, 2019 34 minutes ago, Gothamite said: Agreed. The Packers ruined their road jerseys when they decided to replace their distinctive road striping with an inverse of the home stripes. I'll second this. When Nike truncated the sleeve stripes the jersey lost a little bit more than just the sleeves. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldschoolvikings 13,111 Posted July 20, 2019 1 hour ago, tajmccall said: I'll second this. When Nike truncated the sleeve stripes the jersey lost a little bit more than just the sleeves. The shrinking of the sleeve stripes from 5 to 3 was pre- Nike 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WSU151 7,180 Posted July 20, 2019 8 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said: The shrinking of the sleeve stripes from 5 to 3 was pre- Nike I think it was late-90s-Nike. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DustDevil61 878 Posted July 20, 2019 On 7/15/2019 at 1:46 PM, Sykotyk said: As a Browns fan, I'll pass. I was REALLY hoping that they’d do an orange inverted version of their Color Rush™ jersey (hopefully something like that is rolled out next year), and I even like the idea of gray/silver in the Browns uniforms (primarily as alternate pants, though), nothing can save that awful 2015 template. I can reiterate the thoughts of many here in that the inverted jerseys for New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, Carolina, and the NY Jets would look well with the right combo 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gothamite 20,285 Posted July 20, 2019 39 minutes ago, WSU151 said: I think it was late-90s-Nike. Yes. It was 1997, before there were any league-wide deals. The Packers signed with Nike, who talked them into reducing the sleeve stripes. As with the Steelers, Nike wanted to leave its own mark on an otherwise-untouchable uniform. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SFGiants58 10,691 Posted July 20, 2019 Just now, Gothamite said: Yes. It was 1997, before there were any league-wide deals. The Packers signed with Nike, who talked them into reducing the sleeve stripes. As with the Steelers, Nike wanted to leave its own mark on an otherwise-untouchable uniform. That and players were already truncating the stripes. It’s like what the Bills did with their Super Bowl-era uniforms. Two official sleeve stripes became one, due to player mods. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gothamite 20,285 Posted July 20, 2019 Which is undoubtedly why the Packers allowed themselves to be talked into it. But that doesn’t change Nike’s motivations. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldschoolvikings 13,111 Posted July 20, 2019 1 hour ago, WSU151 said: I think it was late-90s-Nike. My fault... I though it happened during Reebok's time. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SFGiants58 10,691 Posted July 20, 2019 23 minutes ago, Gothamite said: Which is undoubtedly why the Packers allowed themselves to be talked into it. But that doesn’t change Nike’s motivations. Not everything is a Nike conspiracy. Whether it was Nike, Adidas, or Puma, I’m sure it would have happened given how the players wore their jerseys. It beats how the Steelers poorly adapted to shrinking sleeves, that’s for sure. 5 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gothamite 20,285 Posted July 20, 2019 Who said anything about a conspiracy? This is a known thing. In 1995, Nike came in with ideas for a radical overhaul, including new primary logos. (I’ve heard they also suggested a custom number font, but that’s the one piece of the story that hasn’t been verified.) The Packers had initiated an overhaul just a couple years earlier before pulling the plug at the last minute, so they weren’t really interested, and rejected them all out of hand. Nike countered with some minor tweaks, including changing the helmet and pants stripes altogether, or slimming down the sleeve stripes. That one the Packers were down for, and the change was made for 1997. I didn’t say it was a bad change, only that it was a change suggested by Nike after the Packers rejected their more radical designs. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SFGiants58 10,691 Posted July 20, 2019 Ah, I misread your previous posts. Thanks for the clarification. I was worried we were going down the conspiratorial "Nike = pure evil" trope that appears far too often here. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
C-Squared 2,583 Posted July 20, 2019 On 7/19/2019 at 7:08 PM, Tracy Jordan said: I actually wouldn't mind seeing a navy blue version of the current jersey. The red alternates need to be retired. IMO, navy blue has zero place in their current aesthetic. The red jersey would be 10x better paired with white pants. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dont care 4,753 Posted July 21, 2019 On 7/19/2019 at 7:17 PM, Tracy Jordan said: If that's navy, then I must be color blind. Both of these jerseys are listed as navy: They are both navy, just the bills one is the midnight navy the bears also use. The Titans is the regular navy the broncos use. 5 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tracy Jordan 889 Posted July 21, 2019 54 minutes ago, C-Squared said: IMO, navy blue has zero place in their current aesthetic. The red jersey would be 10x better paired with white pants. The red jersey over white pants would be better, but they still look too much like the Pats, IMO... A decade ago, the Bills would occasionally wear their navy practice jerseys with the standing Buffalo helmets during training camp and I thought it was a great look. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FormerLurker 321 Posted July 22, 2019 The Broncos (Dark Gray) Chargers (Gold) Niners (Metallic Gold) Cowboys (Silver) and Cardinals (Silver) are also now available. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ebod39 101 Posted July 22, 2019 On 7/20/2019 at 11:26 AM, Gothamite said: In 1995, Nike came in with ideas for a radical overhaul, including new primary logos. (I’ve heard they also suggested a custom number font, but that’s the one piece of the story that hasn’t been verified.) The Packers had initiated an overhaul just a couple years earlier before pulling the plug at the last minute, so they weren’t really interested, and rejected them all out of hand. Nike countered with some minor tweaks, including changing the helmet and pants stripes altogether, or slimming down the sleeve stripes. That one the Packers were down for, and the change was made for 1997. Could you provide some background and insight to where this info came from, I've never heard this before. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ebod39 101 Posted July 26, 2019 On 7/20/2019 at 11:26 AM, Gothamite said: Who said anything about a conspiracy? This is a known thing. In 1995, Nike came in with ideas for a radical overhaul, including new primary logos. (I’ve heard they also suggested a custom number font, but that’s the one piece of the story that hasn’t been verified.) The Packers had initiated an overhaul just a couple years earlier before pulling the plug at the last minute, so they weren’t really interested, and rejected them all out of hand. Nike countered with some minor tweaks, including changing the helmet and pants stripes altogether, or slimming down the sleeve stripes. That one the Packers were down for, and the change was made for 1997. I didn’t say it was a bad change, only that it was a change suggested by Nike after the Packers rejected their more radical designs. following up on my previous post... Can you provide a source where this information came from? Thanks. @Gothamite 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldschoolvikings 13,111 Posted July 28, 2019 This may be one of the worst photoshop jobs ever. I think they actually put the sleeve stripes on backwards. Did someone get paid for this? 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tohasbo 557 Posted July 28, 2019 On 7/20/2019 at 2:26 PM, Gothamite said: Who said anything about a conspiracy? This is a known thing. In 1995, Nike came in with ideas for a radical overhaul, including new primary logos. (I’ve heard they also suggested a custom number font, but that’s the one piece of the story that hasn’t been verified.) The Packers had initiated an overhaul just a couple years earlier before pulling the plug at the last minute, so they weren’t really interested, and rejected them all out of hand. Nike countered with some minor tweaks, including changing the helmet and pants stripes altogether, or slimming down the sleeve stripes. That one the Packers were down for, and the change was made for 1997. I didn’t say it was a bad change, only that it was a change suggested by Nike after the Packers rejected their more radical designs. On 7/22/2019 at 7:28 PM, ebod39 said: Could you provide some background and insight to where this info came from, I've never heard this before. On 7/25/2019 at 9:18 PM, ebod39 said: following up on my previous post... Can you provide a source where this information came from? Thanks. @Gothamite It was actually in 1994. Ron Wolf was the one who had ideas for changes for the Packers. It was quickly abandoned before it ever saw the field You can read about it all at the following: http://packersuniforms.blogspot.com/2009/02/uniform-change-that-wasnt.html 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
