Falcons New Unis 2020

[shaydre1019]

4 hours ago, Durden said:

The Falcons uniforms are now the worst in the league. There's nothing here to praise. Matte helmets not only look like garbage, but they are also passe. The logo is awful and it's oversized just to remind you how bad of a logo it is.

As for the jerseys - the font,"ATL" and striping are crap, crap, crap. The striping on the pants looks terrible and I don't like the socks not having stripes.

 

How could Nike design such crap and then have the Falcons think that's a good look? It's baffling to me.

 

The next good re-design that NIke does will be the first. These Falcons uniforms are an atrocity and an embarrassment.

I think the Falcons jerseys are okay. A downgrade imo, (and i HATE solid colored socks). Black facemask and white bottom socks would've made these much better for me. 

But they're still far better than the Cardinals, Titans, and Bengals imo. 

[oldschoolvikings]

Worst in the league?  Good question, now that two absolute contenders (Browns and Buccaneers) have dropped out of the running, who are the new worst of the worst?

 

My list in no particular order... Cardinals (classic PYP... that's piping, yokes and panels), Bengals, Titans (both gimmicky disasters), Saints (mismatched colors and stubborn insistence on monochrome), Seahawks (gimmicky and they always lose points in my eyes for being the proud pioneers of NFL monochrome), and if as expected the Rams wear all blue as a primary and the Falcons wear all black as a primary, both will no doubt be contenders for the title IMO.

[Lights Out]

IMO: the Rams, Falcons, Patriots, Bengals, Cowboys and Cardinals are the clear worst-looking teams in the league.

[Chewbacca]

19 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

IMO: the Rams, Falcons, Patriots, Bengals, Cowboys and Cardinals are the clear worst-looking teams in the league.

Although I do agree that the Cowboys and Patriots uniforms could be improved on, I do think calling them the worst looking teams in the NFL is quite a stretch. 

[IceCap]

Rams, Falcons, Titans, Cardinals, Bengals.

[BBTV]

12 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Rams, Falcons, Titans, Cardinals, Bengals.

 

I think that's the list right there.  Order doesn't really matter, they're all the bottom tier.

 

Had Cleveland and Tampa Bay not reverted, they may have formed a whole other bottom tier consisting of just them, so all those other teams just slid down a tier.

 

Falcons may have been in this list regardless, but it's still mind blowing that both them and the Rams would spend years on these changes and make basically the same mistakes.

[Ted Cunningham]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

I think that's the list right there.  Order doesn't really matter, they're all the bottom tier.

 

Had Cleveland and Tampa Bay not reverted, they may have formed a whole other bottom tier consisting of just them, so all those other teams just slid down a tier.

 

Falcons may have been in this list regardless, but it's still mind blowing that both them and the Rams would spend years on these changes and make basically the same mistakes.

 

Your last point is interesting because not only did they make the same mistakes, but aesthetically they were in the same situation: Both of them had stale early 00s rebrands which initially coincided with some success (with the Rams changing their look after winning the Super Bowl at the height of "the greatest show on turf" and the Falcons updating theirs during the Michael Vick years). Those early 00s rebrands were grounded in the trending uniform aesthetics of the era. But, as time went on, those looks became dated, and in the interim, the franchises introduced throwbacks to arguably simpler, more classic designs, which were appreciated by many fans, both because they were improvements over what they were wearing otherwise and for nostalgic reasons. Then, leading up to the 2020 season, both teams proceeded to overthink and overdesign what should have been simple rebrands: instead of returning to popular throwback looks (which seemed to be the obvious choice in both cases), both teams attempted to split the difference of listening to and pleasing the fans, and going with something modern or almost change for change's sake.

 

I think that the head-scratching design choices (e.g. "bone" away jerseys and pants, and no blue accents on the away look for the Rams; the gradient jersey and number font for the Falcons) coupled with frank disappointment shared by ostensibly a lot of people in not returning these two teams to popular throwback looks puts them in that bottom tier, whether that's really an indictment of the designs themselves or not.

 

Personally, I don't think either look is as bad as Cincinnati or Arizona, for instance, which still cling to that 00s piping and panels look. From a purely design standpoint, and given that some basic traditions of football uniforms are followed, they're not awful: if Atlanta were to wear black over white at home and white over white on the road (with contrasting socks) and LA were to wear gold pants with both their home and away jerseys, they'd be acceptable to me. But, that's the whole "in a vacuum" argument. We don't operate "in a vacuum", so the uniforms must be judged both from a purely design standpoint and within the broader context.

 

Your post kind of made that click in my mind, BBTV: how parallel these two redesigns are.

[ramsjetsthunder]

In no particular order,

 

BEST: Raiders, Browns, Redskins, Packers, Steelers, Chiefs

 

WORST: Bengals, Patriots, Titans, Cardinals, Lions, Rams

[throwmesomepics]

This may be off topic from the current discussion, but here’s what I would fix about the falcons current uniforms.
 

Helmets: switch to black face mask, although the chrome ones look alright 

 

Jerseys: Significantly decrease the size of the ATL, maybe even change to “ATLANTA” in a small font. Remove the side stripe on the jersey so only the pant has the stripes and so you can freely mix the red pants without having mismatching stripe colors between the jerseys and pants. Make the red gradient jersey solid red. Keep the entire throwback set as is.

 

Pants: Keep as is, they look fine. Use the red pants more often and the mismatched stripe colors won’t be an issue because of the removed side stripes on the jerseys.

 

Socks: Not much you can change, just avoid monochrome.

[Chawls]

Worst: Rams, Bengals, Cardinals, Falcons, Titans, and Broncos. 

Best: Raiders, Chargers, Chiefs, Bucs/Browns (tie) and Colts/Bills/49ers (tie). 
 

In that order. 

[mafiaman]

On 5/23/2020 at 3:21 AM, throwmesomepics said:

Socks: Not much you can change, just avoid monochrome.

Problem is, everyone seems to think monochrome is four fire emojis.

[MCM0313]

Worst: Bengals and Cardinals. The new Rams and Falcons looks aren’t nearly as good as they could be, but I’ll still take them over these monstrosities. 

 

Best: AFC East aside from New England; all of NFC North; Giants, Colts, Chiefs, Chargers; Browns aside from alt; Buccaneers; Panthers if they’d actually go black/black/blue as often as humanly possible; Niners and Seahawks. And I guess the Steelers. Never liked their color scheme, or San Fran’s for that matter, all that much. And the Ravens are looking better since they added the purple pants, but the stupid purple half-stripes on a black helmet cost them points, and should in-game also, lol. 

[mafiaman]

18 minutes ago, MCM0313 said:

Best: AFC East aside from New England; all of NFC North

Sorry, but I’ll take the Billy Sims or Barry Sanders era Lions uniforms and helmet over today’s look any day of the week.  

[Chromatic]

Worst in the league is Cardinals, and its not particularly close.

[MCM0313]

11 hours ago, mafiaman said:

Sorry, but I’ll take the Billy Sims or Barry Sanders era Lions uniforms and helmet over today’s look any day of the week.  

Me too, but I still think they have one of the better uniforms in the league. 

[oldschoolvikings]

I know the Seahawks uniform gets some support but I have trouble understanding why anybody who puts the Bengals and Cardinals on the bad list could turn around and like Seattle. That gimmacky (feather? wing? guitar pick?) motif spread out over the uniform, the outdated sublimated patterns, the poor color distribution, monochrome... I know, it's all just personal opinions, but I really believe it's only a Superbowl win and the legion of boom that keeps this mess from being much more disliked.

[BBTV]

19 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

I know the Seahawks uniform gets some support but I have trouble understanding why anybody who puts the Bengals and Cardinals on the bad list could turn around and like Seattle. That gimmacky (feather? wing? guitar pick?) motif spread out over the uniform, the outdated sublimated patterns, the poor color distribution, monochrome... I know, it's all just personal opinions, but I really believe it's only a Superbowl win and the legion of boom that keeps this mess from being much more disliked.

 

Seahawks uniform is not even comparable to the Bengals and Cardinals.  Bengals have a million different 'features' that don't look like they were designed to be a cohesive uniform.  The white side panels stand out way too much and don't accomplish anything, the number font doesn't fit with the rest of the design, the sleeve design is OK I guess, but then the pants have a weird hook in the stripe, and the white-to-orange fade effect is as unnecessary as the white side panel it connects to.  

 

The Cardinals is a mess of trendy piping, panels, and other weird things - all paired with a super-traditional helmet.  It's like multiple uniforms in one.  There's nothing about their uniform that's truly unique (which isn't always a bad thing), but it's just like they took one of those new-fanged college uniforms that ended up in the reject pile and said they'd take it.  There's absolutely no obvious "inspiration" in it.

 

The Seahawks looks like it was intentionally designed to be a cohesive uniform system, from the ground up, made by a single designer (or team), and not a committee.  Their gimmicks are still kinda sorta just taking traditional to the next level - for example, their pants stripe is still a straight line without any silly hooks or curves - it just has that little design in it, which honestly I find harmless, and to the point of cohesion, kinda ties in to the sleeve design.

 

The panel that goes from the sleeve into the chest is not 'traditional', but it's basically a solution to the problem of not being able to put stripes on today's uniforms.  Honestly it's the one thing I didn't mind about the Browns uniform.  I could do without the wordmark there - that's about the only down mark I'd give it.

 

The use of colors is pretty good, and I really like that they've embraced that shade of green.  The numbers are certainly not traditional, but they're way more legible than 90% of these silly gimmicky fonts like we've seen recently, and they're bold and "strong" IMO.  I could do without the design inside them, but it's barely noticeable - just like the helmet.  I thought it was stupid at first, but again, it's hard to even notice, so it's unnecessary but benign.

 

You don't like monochrome uniforms, and won't even listen to discussions about them (you may have mentioned that once or twice or 5,000 times) but this one looks like it was designed from the top down to work in any combination, and the navy works far better for this look than their previous lighter blue.  

 

Basically, the Seahawks uniform doesn't seem to have been designed by 5 different design teams, and then redone 50 times based on team feedback, and then have things just tacked on because of reasons.  It's 'gimmicks' are 99% unnoticeable (except the wordmark), and it fits their brand 100% perfectly.  Even their 'wolf gray' jersey works as a gray jersey, and not a dirty white one.

 

If you don't care for it then fine, but if you look at it objectively, it's not really comparable to those other teams.

[oldschoolvikings]

17 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

You don't like monochrome uniforms, and won't even listen to discussions about them (you may have mentioned that once or twice or 5,000 times).

 

Oh, I'm almost certain it's been more times than that.

[daniel75]

4 hours ago, Chromatic said:

Worst in the league is Cardinals, and its not particularly close.

Atlanta and L.A. would like to have a word.

[Chromatic]

1 hour ago, daniel75 said:

Atlanta and L.A. would like to have a word.

Atlanta is ok. Not good, but not terrible. The gradient is a bit much and the 'ATL' is very college but its still a drastic improvement over the old.

 

LA is bad but the home is a tweak or two or away from being decent. Its the road that drags it down.

 

Arizona is fundamentally flawed. There are no minor changes to make that can fix the uniform. Its mid-2000s nonsense panels and piping wherever you feel like design at its zenith. It needs a redo.