FormerLurker

NFL 2020 Changes

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Jojopeligreeno said:

there was a rule in place before ...they were used only for throwbacks. How many different helmets did you see in the past besides throwbacks ? None. The Seahawks asked with their redesign to have home and away and were denied. 

This isn't true unless you consider a fauxback as a throwback. Packers in brown shells or yellow shells with no stripes. Bills in red shells with white standing Bill. Jets in green shells with 60's era logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

This isn't true unless you consider a fauxback as a throwback. Packers in brown shells or yellow shells with no stripes. Bills in red shells with white standing Bill. Jets in green shells with 60's era logo.


I think we have to be define what those terms mean, since there isn’t a standard or universally-accepted definition. 
 

I would consider your examples to all be throwbacks, only throwbacks shaped by the limitations of technology.  Obviously the Packers had to wear helmets, so the 1920s throwbacks had brown shells to match the unpainted leather helmets common at the time. Their gold shells do a pretty good job of representing their gold-painted leather helmets, again within the constraints of 21st century technological requirements.  The Bills and Jets used their contemporary shells in 1994 because they were worried about the safety implications of swapping out the helmets.  Again, bowing to technological constraints. 

 

Personally, I would reserve the word “fauxback” for situations where they aren’t actually trying to match a previous style, like the Rays’ glorious 1970s uniforms. 

spacer.png
That is a fauxback.  And a glorious one. 😉

Share this post


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

The more I look at these, the more I want them full time and the current ones to be the alternate 


Agreed. I love this set. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Personally, I would reserve the word “fauxback” for situations where they aren’t actually trying to match a previous style, like the Rays’ glorious 1970s uniforms. 

spacer.png
That is a fauxback.  And a glorious one. 😉

I meannnn, it's not so much a fauxback as it is a Padres uniform in rays colors, I agree it looks great though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would absolutely love to see certain NFL teams test out fauxbacks. Potentially with each team being designated with a certain decade.

 

Panthers (1960s)

Jaguars (1970s)

Ravens (1950s)

Texans (1990s)

 

*Decades are just for examples sake

Share this post


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


I think we have to be define what those terms mean, since there isn’t a standard or universally-accepted definition. 
 

I would consider your examples to all be throwbacks, only throwbacks shaped by the limitations of technology.  Obviously the Packers had to wear helmets, so the 1920s throwbacks had brown shells to match the unpainted leather helmets common at the time. Their gold shells do a pretty good job of representing their gold-painted leather helmets, again within the constraints of 21st century technological requirements.  The Bills and Jets used their contemporary shells in 1994 because they were worried about the safety implications of swapping out the helmets.  Again, bowing to technological constraints. 

 

Personally, I would reserve the word “fauxback” for situations where they aren’t actually trying to match a previous style, like the Rays’ glorious 1970s uniforms. 

spacer.png
That is a fauxback.  And a glorious one. 😉

 

I'd define "Fauxback" as a design which parodies without trying to replicate. I think its the difference between doing a cover verses doing an omage. Back in the U.S.S.R. is a faux-Beach Boys song for example. 

 

The Rays are a great example but so are the Phillies Sunday uniforms:

 

ap_19160743421984_1920x1080_153472057969

 

They resemble the 1940's uniforms but use the contemporary logos. 

 

In football, that's a little harder to do. I'd argue that the Bills current uniforms are fauxbacks since they are meant to evoke the 70's/80's design but do not copy it. Same thing with the Falcons black uniforms of recent vintage. They mix eras in an effort to evoke the 90's design without copying. 

 

ap-19328764912125.jpg

960x0.jpg?fit=scale

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2020 at 8:10 PM, Tracy Jordan said:

Here's all the glorious uniforms that we could potentially see return if the NFL allows throwback helmets next year...

 

11-1996-Denver-Broncos-playoff-choke.jpg

Tampa-Bay-Orange-Uniforms-Retro-660x330.

atlanta-falcons-alternate-helmet.jpg

600x350

oilers_throwback.jpg

105636475_crop_650x440.jpg?1315679711

Lesean+Mccoy+Green+Bay+Packers+v+Philade

kellen-winslow-2.jpg

seahawks2001home.jpg

patriots-throwback.jpg

Namath_Joe37_Jets.jpg

 

How hard is it to make an exception just for these teams? And even if a hypothetical rule change were to open the door for alternate helmets for all 32 teams in the future, then so be it. The 49ers could wear solid black from head to toe twice a year for all I care. I'm willing to make that sacrifice if it means seeing the return of the Bucs in creamsicle, Patriot Pat, red Falcons helmets, etc..

 

 

I'll add this. Not possible currently cause of the satin helmet.

 

I_GWk3KoT9pd6E_EOuOIXBKA0rrGjI-aZKR5gL2R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea, and I apologize if this has been floated out before...

 

Why doesn't the NFL just fix the helmet rule and then dedicate an entire month of the season to honoring previous eras of football? Could you imagine if every year the league honored different periods of times through uniform design, and just ramped up throwback and fauxback apparel sales?  It would sell like hotcakes.  :censored:, we do it for salute to service, cancer awareness, my cause my cleats etc. PLUS - FAUXBACKS WOULD BE AWESOME IN THIS CAPACITY. 

 

That, or make Thursday Night Football a "throwback thursday" instead of color rush and just let teams wear throwback unis, that way we're getting a taste all throughout the year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gothamite said:


I think we have to be define what those terms mean, since there isn’t a standard or universally-accepted definition. 
 

I would consider your examples to all be throwbacks, only throwbacks shaped by the limitations of technology.  Obviously the Packers had to wear helmets, so the 1920s throwbacks had brown shells to match the unpainted leather helmets common at the time. Their gold shells do a pretty good job of representing their gold-painted leather helmets, again within the constraints of 21st century technological requirements.  The Bills and Jets used their contemporary shells in 1994 because they were worried about the safety implications of swapping out the helmets.  Again, bowing to technological constraints. 

 

Objection - Presenting speculation as facts, your Honor? This didn't stop other teams for changing shells (Atlanta, Denver, Houston, New England, and San Diego).

Share this post


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

That, or make Thursday Night Football a "throwback thursday" instead of color rush and just let teams wear throwback unis, that way we're getting a taste all throughout the year. 

I could have sworn I read somewhere that this was the original plan before Color Rush happened...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gothamite said:


I think we have to be define what those terms mean, since there isn’t a standard or universally-accepted definition. 
 

I would consider your examples to all be throwbacks, only throwbacks shaped by the limitations of technology.  Obviously the Packers had to wear helmets, so the 1920s throwbacks had brown shells to match the unpainted leather helmets common at the time. Their gold shells do a pretty good job of representing their gold-painted leather helmets, again within the constraints of 21st century technological requirements.  The Bills and Jets used their contemporary shells in 1994 because they were worried about the safety implications of swapping out the helmets.  Again, bowing to technological constraints. 

 

Personally, I would reserve the word “fauxback” for situations where they aren’t actually trying to match a previous style, like the Rays’ glorious 1970s uniforms. 

 

 

Gonna need some kind of citation on that one.  I could swear that I read in SI at that time that it was simply a cost thing - they didn't feel like spending any extra money.  I probably still have the issue in one of my storage crates at ma's and pa's house, but given the circumstances, I can't exactly go see them to look for it.

Share this post


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

 

Gonna need some kind of citation on that one.  I could swear that I read in SI at that time that it was simply a cost thing - they didn't feel like spending any extra money.  I probably still have the issue in one of my storage crates at ma's and pa's house, but given the circumstances, I can't exactly go see them to look for it.

 

Don't have a citation but the common understanding is that while it was a league wide program it was left to the teams to create and procure their own throwbacks. There was no league wide supplier providing logistics to make this happen. If each franchise had to foot the bill, and likely delegated the execution to the equipment staff it's more than plausible that some franchisees would not want to commit to a second set of helmets for a league mandated promotion. Because franchisees.

Share this post


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

Here's an idea, and I apologize if this has been floated out before...

 

Why doesn't the NFL just fix the helmet rule and then dedicate an entire month of the season to honoring previous eras of football? Could you imagine if every year the league honored different periods of times through uniform design, and just ramped up throwback and fauxback apparel sales?  It would sell like hotcakes.  :censored:, we do it for salute to service, cancer awareness, my cause my cleats etc. PLUS - FAUXBACKS WOULD BE AWESOME IN THIS CAPACITY. 

 

That, or make Thursday Night Football a "throwback thursday" instead of color rush and just let teams wear throwback unis, that way we're getting a taste all throughout the year. 

 

I remember Thanksgiving week was sort of an unofficial throwback week. Actual Thanksgiving day games were official throwback games, but some teams would come out on Sunday or Monday wearing a throwback. That's when you want to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, guest23 said:

 

Don't have a citation but the common understanding is that while it was a league wide program it was left to the teams to create and procure their own throwbacks. There was no league wide supplier providing logistics to make this happen. If each franchise had to foot the bill, and likely delegated the execution to the equipment staff it's more than plausible that some franchisees would not want to commit to a second set of helmets for a league mandated promotion. Because franchisees.

Knowing that most NFL owners are among the elite wealthy of this country, I am always still a little (very, very little at this point) surprised at how frugal they can be when it comes to expenses. Guess I shouldn't expect better of people; but I still do.

 

[Please don't take that as a political comment]

Share this post


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

Knowing that most NFL owners are among the elite wealthy of this country, I am always still a little (very, very little at this point) surprised at how frugal they can be when it comes to expenses. Guess I shouldn't expect better of people; but I still do.

 

[Please don't take that as a political comment]

 

Money in football was big back then, but it wasn't BIG like it is now.  Not saying they couldn't have paid for it, but if those particular owners just didn't care, I could see them not paying for one-time-use helmets (or maybe two-time use in some cases).  Bills and Jets did look dumb though. 

Share this post


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

 

Money in football was big back then, but it wasn't BIG like it is now.  Not saying they couldn't have paid for it, but if those particular owners just didn't care, I could see them not paying for one-time-use helmets (or maybe two-time use in some cases).  Bills and Jets did look dumb though. 

Well, yes, the money was less back then, but 1994 was the first season of the NFL's Fox deal -- total TV revenues for each team alone was $39.2 million per team, with a salary cap of $34.6 million. You'd think that there would be money to buy a second set of helmets, even at those smaller numbers when compared to today. Again, it doesn't surprise me that some teams would opt to save the money, but it still seems so frugal to me. 

 

It is interesting to see that in those mid-90s seasons, the cap for player's salaries was covered by merely the TV revenues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I could have sworn I read somewhere that this was the original plan before Color Rush happened...

 

That's actually the way it should be. As it stands now, it looks ridiculous for one team to be wearing a throwback and another team using their regular uniforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Objection - Presenting speculation as facts, your Honor? This didn't stop other teams for changing shells (Atlanta, Denver, Houston, New England, and San Diego).

 

11 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Gonna need some kind of citation on that one.  I could swear that I read in SI at that time that it was simply a cost thing - they didn't feel like spending any extra money.  I probably still have the issue in one of my storage crates at ma's and pa's house, but given the circumstances, I can't exactly go see them to look for it.

 

Different teams took different approaches - I remember as well that money played a part in some, but I also remember that at least one team was worried about breaking in a second full set of helmets (I think it was the Jets).

 

We have to keep in mind that this was unheard of at the time.  Throwback uniforms as a thing were only old years when NFL teams were making their plans, and even baseball was just taking its first tentative steps.   At the time, this seemed like an absolute one-off, and nobody was predicting that baseball teams would have permanent throwbacks, much less football teams.

 

11 hours ago, guest23 said:

Don't have a citation but the common understanding is that while it was a league wide program it was left to the teams to create and procure their own throwbacks. There was no league wide supplier providing logistics to make this happen. If each franchise had to foot the bill, and likely delegated the execution to the equipment staff it's more than plausible that some franchisees would not want to commit to a second set of helmets for a league mandated promotion. Because franchisees.

 

2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Money in football was big back then, but it wasn't BIG like it is now.  Not saying they couldn't have paid for it, but if those particular owners just didn't care, I could see them not paying for one-time-use helmets (or maybe two-time use in some cases).  Bills and Jets did look dumb though. 

 

All very true.  Teams didn't monetize those throwbacks at all (the Packers themselves were still more than a decade away from their initial forays into blue-and-gold merchandise).  MItchell and Ness, who almost single-handedly created the throwback retail market, had only been selling retro MLB jerseys for about five years and was still a couple years away from making their first NFL throwback jersey.

 

So each team was left on its own to decide what to do.  Some took a more expansive approach, others were more conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Times are rough. Can’t a couple of these teams unveil their new uniforms now? It would be a welcome diversion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BJ Sands said:

Times are rough. Can’t a couple of these teams unveil their new uniforms now? It would be a welcome diversion. 

It'd be nice, but I don't think teams are thinking about that at the moment.

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.