Falcons New Unis 2020

[Carolingian Steamroller]

24 minutes ago, L10nheart404 said:

Ehh... The only reason the black and white home combo wasn't worn, or chosen as the default, was because that's the exact uniform Vick broke his leg in. They deemed it cursed, and settled on the red, because the All black was seen as a "big game" uniform, until it was phased out. I'm not against the new All black and all white. They can be accented with white or red accessories, as most players will add their own flair to it. Dan Quinn said the players will choose what combos to wear, and they don't have a set in stone uniform schedule.

They deemed it cursed after two preseason games?

 

That’s bonkers. 
 

They still had the black pants option. Even so, just looking at it from a design angle, the previous set and the new one suffer from a lot of the same problems. 

[L10nheart404]

4 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

They deemed it cursed after two preseason games?

 

That’s bonkers. 
 

They still had the black pants option. Even so, just looking at it from a design angle, the previous set and the new one suffer from a lot of the same problems. 

I mean... There's literally only two design features that's on the jersey and pants. The stripe is thin and inoffensive, and the ATL badge is the same color on the home and away, as is the stripes. Everything else is very cohesive and simple. There's no piping on the jersey or pants, and no three tone sleeve stripes.  I understand if you're not fond of them, they're not for everybody. But the uniforms you'll be seeing for 15 games a year is a nice, modern, and simple; even if the number font is a little different.

[BBTV]

6 hours ago, L10nheart404 said:

I mean... There's literally only two design features that's on the jersey and pants. The stripe is thin and inoffensive, and the ATL badge is the same color on the home and away, as is the stripes. Everything else is very cohesive and simple. There's no piping on the jersey or pants, and no three tone sleeve stripes.  I understand if you're not fond of them, they're not for everybody. But the uniforms you'll be seeing for 15 games a year is a nice, modern, and simple; even if the number font is a little different.

 

That's the shame of it - it could be, but unfortunately they turned up the dial to 11 on the minimal 'features' that there are, and they dominate to the point where it's hard to call it simple.

 

Had they reduced the numbers a bit and made the ATL a reasonable size, then I think it'd be able to be called 'simple' or 'clean', and I'd be able to look past the other parts that I don't care for (socks matching pants, side stripes that don't match up.)  Obviously whether one likes it or not is totally subjective, but I think it's easier to like if there's less there to hate.  What they could have had was a uniform that was simple, but not plain like the Jags got.

[BBTV]

Was just thinking... the gradient jersey might work really well for the Ravens.

[DCarp1231]

7 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Was just thinking... the gradient jersey might work really well for the Ravens.

I agree. The black and shade of purple work well enough where it wouldn’t be as harsh as the Falcons red and black.

[mafiaman]

11 hours ago, L10nheart404 said:

Dan Quinn said the players will choose what combos to wear...

As I said before, be prepared for Darth Vader and Storm Trooper outfits every weekend!

[RayFinkle]

Pretty good, IMO. Love the helmets. And just the simple fact that all that stupid piping is now gone is wonderful.

[andrewharrington]

11 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

One home look, for sure, but there's a fair argument for "clash set" pants for some road teams. For instance, Bears @ Seahawks, both teams would be in navy blue pants and helmets, it might not hurt for the Bears to wear their white pants in that game for better separation between teams. Or take the Chiefs: maybe for special occasions, they can go all-white instead of white-red-white. But the home uniforms shouldn't have any variation or alternate jerseys.

That’s reasonable. I suppose what I should have said was limit your home/road collection to a maximum of two jerseys and two pants, with “best practice” being two defined looks.

[The_Admiral]

I can agree with that. I can't think of a set where I'd say a team would need a third pair of socks or pants. But most of all, you should have one and only one signature set for your home games, we're definitely in agreement there. I wouldn't want to finally make it to a Packers game at Lambeau and they're wearing all white, or even if I were a Jaguars fan and they're wearing all Dijon mustard.

[Sec19Row53]

4 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

That’s reasonable. I suppose what I should have said was limit your home/road collection to a maximum of two jerseys and two pants, with “best practice” being two defined looks.

Just curious. Green Bay and Pittsburgh have one set of pants (not counting the color rush pants). When they meet every four years, should one of them have to wear something different, as it relates to this color clash conversation? I'm opposed to it (probably obviously) because that is their look. Why look less than their best, as it might be the first time @the admiral visits Lambeau, and fans should see the team at their best?

[DCarp1231]

8 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Just curious. Green Bay and Pittsburgh have one set of pants (not counting the color rush pants). When they meet every four years, should one of them have to wear something different, as it relates to this color clash conversation? I'm opposed to it (probably obviously) because that is their look. Why look less than their best, as it might be the first time @the admiral visits Lambeau, and fans should see the team at their best?

On the other side of the spectrum, I’ve never liked two opposing teams both wearing white pants. You’re really only getting one good focal point of color and it drags the value of viewing down.

[Sec19Row53]

3 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

On the other side of the spectrum, I’ve never liked two opposing teams both wearing white pants. You’re really only getting one good focal point of color and it drags the value of viewing down.

Understood, and I get it. So if the Colts (with only white pants) visit the Bears (who wear white pants at home), should one of them change? I'm not trying to play the gotcha card -- I'm curious how you look at a case like this. I think you play the game that way, but would understand if you say a team has to have an additional set of pants to have contrast when they are the road team. As it relates to the Packers, it means we would have to have something to wear every 8 years when we visit Pittsburgh - not my favorite, but I get it.

Clearly nothing else to talk about - thanks for humoring me

[The_Admiral]

10 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Just curious. Green Bay and Pittsburgh have one set of pants (not counting the color rush pants). When they meet every four years, should one of them have to wear something different, as it relates to this color clash conversation? I'm opposed to it (probably obviously) because that is their look. Why look less than their best, as it might be the first time @the admiral visits Lambeau, and fans should see the team at their best?

 

I've tepidly endorsed the Packers wearing white pants on the road against teams that also wear athletic gold pants at home, which I guess at one point would have been the Steelers, the Redskins, and the Rams. I don't think a team should be made to wear contrasting pants, given so many matchups feature white against white, but they may find it beneficial. 

[andrewharrington]

3 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Just curious. Green Bay and Pittsburgh have one set of pants (not counting the color rush pants). When they meet every four years, should one of them have to wear something different, as it relates to this color clash conversation? I'm opposed to it (probably obviously) because that is their look. Why look less than their best, as it might be the first time @the admiral visits Lambeau, and fans should see the team at their best?

Three ways I typically sort this out:

 

1. If you wear white pants at home, wear them on the road, too.

 

2. if you wear light colored pants (silver, gold, etc.) at home, wear them on the road, too.

 

3. If you wear either 1. or 2. at home, wear medium/dark colored pants on the road.

 

I don’t depart much from that, so I would not put Green Bay or Pittsburgh in different pants to play each other. Having light colored pants at home and white on the road should be a quirk that maybe one or two teams do, but it’s not something I want to see on several teams. If I had to choose one of those two teams to do it, I’d probably say Green Bay looks better in white pants, but they both belong in gold.

[DCarp1231]

7 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Understood, and I get it. So if the Colts (with only white pants) visit the Bears (who wear white pants at home), should one of them change? I'm not trying to play the gotcha card -- I'm curious how you look at a case like this. I think you play the game that way, but would understand if you say a team has to have an additional set of pants to have contrast when they are the road team. As it relates to the Packers, it means we would have to have something to wear every 8 years when we visit Pittsburgh - not my favorite, but I get it.

Clearly nothing else to talk about - thanks for humoring me

I see the Colts as a better blue-bottom heavy away team rather than an all white team. I don’t absolutely hate white pants vs white pants, but it helps to have contrasting pants.

 

To the point about GB-PIT, I don’t think you’d have to change the pants of either team, but a secondary plan should be in place for the need-be.

[The_Admiral]

I would prefer the Rams in yellow pants at home and white on the road. The old road set never looked great, too much yellow, and this way you could make that your Fearsome Foursome callback. There would be a nice symmetry to blue sleeves and socks if they went about it that way. 

 

I think I can tolerate the Packers in white pants and green socks (especially if they were the old striped socks) as a once-in-a-blue-moon road game set. It could be an interesting quirk to have the white on white only pop up in select locations. The Color Rush set with plain white socks is unacceptable, especially at home where it takes one precious appearance of the Packers' signature uniform off the calendar.

[VikWings]

On 4/11/2020 at 2:27 AM, aawagner011 said:

A couple retail images have surfaced of the black and white jerseys. These are the mid grade Limiteds. I am very curious to see how the gradient is translated to the fan jerseys. I have a feeling that one may be released as the sublimated, cheaper Legend version only. I can’t see how they would be able to apply that design to the Game or Limited jerseys.

 

 

 

 

 

These actually don't look that bad on their own, besides the ATL being too big.

 

But then you remember that the gradient jersey exists and the fact that these two jerseys will primarily be worn black head to toe and white head to toe and it kills everything.

 

 

I thought I hated side panels on football uniforms, but from the waist up they don't look too bad sometimes (the Titans pit stains and Bengals come to mind as ones that are awful regardless) when they become terrible is when the pants stripes don't match or align.

[oldschoolvikings]

I'm trying to cobble together a view of the font (quarantine boredom, I guess) and here's my first attempt. The 3 and 6 are both guesses, because I couldn't find a pic of them anywhere.  It's weird that the only numbers that have that hook serif are the 2 and the 9.  It could be on the 3, but since it isn't on the 5 or 7, my guess is it won't be on the 3. I initially used a rotated 9 for the 6, but the diagonal cut-out didn't work with the side shadow at the rotation. I doubt I got everything right, but I may be close.  Anything obvious I missed?

 

[Sec19Row53]

2 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

I'm trying to cobble together a view of the font (quarantine boredom, I guess) and here's my first attempt. The 3 and 6 are both guesses, because I couldn't find a pic of them anywhere.  It's weird that the only numbers that have that hook serif are the 2 and the 9.  It could be on the 3, but since it isn't on the 5 or 7, my guess is it won't be on the 3. I initially used a rotated 9 for the 6, but the diagonal cut-out didn't work with the side shadow at the rotation. I doubt I got everything right, but I may be close.  Anything obvious I missed?

 

Is the top right of the 6 squared off, or rounded? The 5 as well. The rest of the top right are rounded.  i was wondering that about the 1 and 2, as the 2 on the white jersey above seems rounded, but the 1 on the black jersey was less clear.

[Pizzaman7294]

13 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 The entire idea of the sleeve inserts was that it would be the same pattern whether you were looking at the black jersey, red jersey, or white jersey. The red piping on the black and white jerseys was designed so that the pants would be interchangeable with a consistent line down the seams. 

 

TIL