Colts to tweak Logo/Unis in 2020

[dont care]

51 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

The second helmet each team should adopt:

 

Cardinals- NONE

Falcons- RED/BLACK (whichever one they don’t use in the redesign)

Ravens- PURPLE

Bills- RED

Panthers- BLACK

Bears- NONE

Bengals- NONE

Browns- NONE

Cowboys- WHITE

Broncos- LIGHT BLUE

Lions- NONE

Packers- NONE

Texans- RED

Colts- BLUE

Jaguars- TEAL

Chiefs- NONE

Dolphins- NONE

Vikings- DARK PURPLE

Patriots- WHITE

Saints- DARKER GOLD or WHITE

Giants- NONE

Jets- WHITE

Raiders- NONE

Eagles- KELLY GREEN

Steelers- YELLOW

Chargers- DARK or ROYAL BLUE

49ers- NONE

Seahawks- SILVER

Rams- NAVY BLUE (assuming they change the helmet color for redesign)

Buccaneers- WHITE

Titans- WHITE

Redskins- FAUX LEATHER/YELLOW

 

 

11 teams should opt for no second helmet

21 remaining teams should opt for second helmet

Out of the 11 teams:

- All of them can utilize throwbacks

Out of the 21 teams:

- 14 should opt for helmets geared towards strictly throwbacks

- 7 should opt for helmets geared towards throwbacks or something completely new

Should but then one team would want a black out, another want a white out. Another wants full color rush ect and the slippery slope continues. One of the teams with regular and throwback helmet goes why can’t we also have an alt helmet like the other teams. Team with only and alt helmet asks why they are allowed 3 helmets and it goes on and on.

[infrared41]

3 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

There is no evidence to support your claim, and no need for you to continue to make stupid generalizations.  I explained myself in a previous post, but you continue to make the slippery slope argument and generalize people that like throwback helmets without even having the courtesy to address rebuttals and have a mature discussion.

 

There's no need for you respond like that. Turn the BBTV-ness back down to 8. Thanks. 

[infrared41]

39 minutes ago, dont care said:

Another wants full color rush ect and the slippery slope continues.

 

Not for nothing, but the "slippery slope" argument is pure fallacy. If the NFL allows teams to wear an extra helmet for throwbacks, all it means is that the NFL allowed teams to wear an extra helmet for throwbacks. It doesn't mean that it's the first step towards the nightmare scenario of NCAA level stupidity. The next step is whatever the NFL decides it is - which may be no next step at all. Point being, A doesn't always cause X. 

[jn8]

5 hours ago, Goatiest Maximian said:

Colts with a blue alternate helmet with blue pants can a man dream paw can a man dream 

Well Duke has you covered, so no need for the Colts to do it now:

 

 

 

 

And I feel like I should note that I love how a blue Colts helmet looks, but I’m gonna have to hard pass on alternate helmets in the NFL. I was pro one helmet rule, but I am willing to live with a second as long as it’s throwback only

[Sec19Row53]

3 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

Not for nothing, but the "slippery slope" argument is pure fallacy. If the NFL allows teams to wear an extra helmet for throwbacks, all it means is that the NFL allowed teams to wear an extra helmet for throwbacks. It doesn't mean that it's the first step towards the nightmare scenario of NCAA level stupidity. The next step is whatever the NFL decides it is - which may be no next step at all. Point being, A doesn't always cause X. 

Except that OSV showed the slippery slope is exactly what has happened. 

[BBTV]

6 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Well, this just isn’t true.  I’ve explained a few times why I think these things are definitely part of a slippery slope. I mean, yeah, I did ignore your earlier post about how my opinion was “the dumbest thing, by far, you’ve ever read on this site” (now there’s some “mature discussion”), because I thought it wasn’t really worth responding to, and from the goofy hyperbole I half assumed you were kidding. But if now, after calling my opinion “worse than Tnak’s” you’d like to engage in some “mature" debate, I’ll give it a try. (Although as you have pointed out my obvious limited intellectual facilities, how well can I really expect to do?)

 

Here’s the slippery slope, as it has pertained to the NFL’s stance on alternate jerseys. The first example of any sort of alternate jersey, at least in the Super Bowl era, was back in the 90’s when everyone wore Throwbacks a couple times that year. Seemed like a one time deal. But after that a few teams starting mixing them in. So the NFL instituted a policy that teams could wear EITHER a throwback or an alt jersey in a secondary color, only twice and only at home. Checking Gridiron Database, you can see that this stated policy got messed with before too long.  The Panthers started wearing their alt on the road, and at some point, three became the maximum amount instead of two. OK, that seems a bit slippery to me. Next came a possible FORTH jersey, when the NFL decided to do the Color Rush stuff. But don’t worry! They have a very strict policy! Only on Thursday nights!  Except that that policy (slippery slope?) went away in two years. Now a team can wear that color rush jersey whenever. And mix and match them with other uniform pieces. And if there are still restrictions on how often you can wear an alternate uniform, I can’t tell what they are.  Last year the Ravens and Titans wore 9 different combos. The Jaguars wore 10. (Again, according the Gridiron Database.) Now you can like all this variety or dislike it… that’s up to you, but I don’t see how you can debate (mature or otherwise) that the track alternate jerseys and uniforms followed from 1994 until today can be seen as a slippery slope.

 

So, you’re right, that there’s no absolute proof that alternate helmets would follow this same path. The NFL could institute a policy (you know, like all those previous defunct policies) that says alt helmets are for throwbacks only. But, really… is it all that crazy to think that, based on everything I outlined above, after opening the door to alternate helmets those rules (whatever they are at first) will become more relaxed as time goes by?  That a newer team that doesn’t have a throwback helmet possibility from their history might want to try out an alt helmet too?  That Nike and the NFL might want to push another Color Rush type promotion, this time including helmets? I don’t know, maybe that is the dumbest thing you’ve ever read on this site, but even if it is, there seems to be more than a few people on here that agree with me.    

 

 

 

On 3/25/2020 at 12:43 PM, oldschoolvikings said:

Make no mistake... if you're excited about the one helmet rule going away you are on "Team Crazy-multiple-helmets".  You are.  That's the side you're taking, period. 

 

 

This is the specific statement you made that I find offensive.  You say this with such definiteness and condescension, when you're flat out wrong about not only the people that you're blanketing, but your argument in general, which multiple people have pointed  out is flawed.

 

I'm a living example of why the statement is flawed even without the faulty slippery-slope argument - but let's start there.  The NFL has never bent on helmets, even when they did allow more than one.  The only evidence we have to go on is them denying at least one team from wearing a second one.  They don't sell helmets or profit from them, and the likelihood is that if they're backing off of the "any more than one may not be safe" stance, they'd ease into it rather than just go hog wild with teams having 4 or 5 lids.  The fact that helmets are logos makes it less likely that they'd cave to Nike and go nuts like that.  Comparing helmets to jerseys is not fair, since they sell 10s of thousands of jerseys a year, and what - a handful of real helmets and an insignificant amount of minis?  Is it possible that you're right?  Of course it is - but it's also possible that a tree falls on my neighbor's house.  In either case, there's no good evidence to support either prediction.

 

But the thing that I find most offensive is that you are saying that I - BBTV - me - personally - am on "Team Crazy-multiple-helmets", when that could absolutely not be farther from the truth.  I'm not taking that side.  "Period".  I'd like for you to explain why you think that I, who has always fought in favor of brand consistency and strength and against dilution, would support teams having multiple-crazy helmets.  Me, who has routinely praised the Yankees for standing firm on their stance against participation in any event where they would be forced to wear a silly hat (until they did).  Me, who despises all the mix and matching that teams do, because I also hate turning on a game and not instantly knowing who's playing.

 

Did I pour it on a little strong?  Probably.  I'll walk it back some.   Regardless, it's my opinion that's an ignorant statement.

 

 

 

 

[infrared41]

16 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Except that OSV showed the slippery slope is exactly what has happened. 

 

The idea of the slippery slope is that one bad decision starts a chain of related bad decisions. The reality is that each decision stands alone. Bad decision A is not the reason we ended up at bad decision X. The "slope" could have been easily stopped at every point along the way. One bad decision does not make the next bad decision more likely or the next logical step. 

[Sec19Row53]

Just now, infrared41 said:

 

The idea of the slippery slope is that one bad decision starts a chain of related bad decisions. The reality is that each decision stands alone. Bad decision A is not the reason we ended up at bad decision X. The "slope" could have been easily stopped at every point along the way. One bad decision does not make the next bad decision more likely or the next logical step. 

OK - we're probably on the same page here, but the bad decisions weren't stopped along the way.

As BBTV said, maybe they would be with helmets. I'm firmly in the camp that I don't want to find out the hard way. It's why my side of this argument (lately at least) results in me just saying 'you have a best look and you should wear it each game'.

[infrared41]

1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said:

OK - we're probably on the same page here, but the bad decisions weren't stopped along the way.

As BBTV said, maybe they would be with helmets. I'm firmly in the camp that I don't want to find out the hard way. It's why my side of this argument (lately at least) results in me just saying 'you have a best look and you should wear it each game'.

 

A series of bad decisions usually means that whoever is making those decisions was already predisposed to make the worst decision of the chain. It's not like the first bad decision "softened the ground" for the next one and so on. Point being, if the NFL allows 35 helmets per team, all that means is the NFL was probably OK with 35 helmets per team all along. Anyway, I'm with you. Wear your best look and be done with it. 

[Survival79]

 

[chcarlson23]

So they went with the print logo on the helmet, rather than the helmet logo for print?

[Cujo]

Here's your Colts uniform tweak -- pants reduced to a single-stripe.

 

 

[IceCap]

8 minutes ago, Cujo said:

Here's your Colts uniform tweak -- pants reduced to a single-stripe.

Hasn't it been confirmed that it's just a mistake from Madden 20? Which is a game that's been out for months by this point.

[UnclearInitial]

8 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Well, this just isn’t true.  I’ve explained a few times why I think these things are definitely part of a slippery slope. I mean, yeah, I did ignore your earlier post about how my opinion was “the dumbest thing, by far, you’ve ever read on this site” (now there’s some “mature discussion”), because I thought it wasn’t really worth responding to, and from the goofy hyperbole I half assumed you were kidding. But if now, after calling my opinion “worse than Tnak’s” you’d like to engage in some “mature" debate, I’ll give it a try. (Although as you have pointed out my obvious limited intellectual facilities, how well can I really expect to do?)

 

Here’s the slippery slope, as it has pertained to the NFL’s stance on alternate jerseys. The first example of any sort of alternate jersey, at least in the Super Bowl era, was back in the 90’s when everyone wore Throwbacks a couple times that year. Seemed like a one time deal. But after that a few teams starting mixing them in. So the NFL instituted a policy that teams could wear EITHER a throwback or an alt jersey in a secondary color, only twice and only at home. Checking Gridiron Database, you can see that this stated policy got messed with before too long.  The Panthers started wearing their alt on the road, and at some point, three became the maximum amount instead of two. OK, that seems a bit slippery to me. Next came a possible FORTH jersey, when the NFL decided to do the Color Rush stuff. But don’t worry! They have a very strict policy! Only on Thursday nights!  Except that that policy (slippery slope?) went away in two years. Now a team can wear that color rush jersey whenever. And mix and match them with other uniform pieces. And if there are still restrictions on how often you can wear an alternate uniform, I can’t tell what they are.  Last year the Ravens and Titans wore 9 different combos. The Jaguars wore 10. (Again, according the Gridiron Database.) Now you can like all this variety or dislike it… that’s up to you, but I don’t see how you can debate (mature or otherwise) that the track alternate jerseys and uniforms followed from 1994 until today can be seen as a slippery slope.

 

So, you’re right, that there’s no absolute proof that alternate helmets would follow this same path. The NFL could institute a policy (you know, like all those previous defunct policies) that says alt helmets are for throwbacks only. But, really… is it all that crazy to think that, based on everything I outlined above, after opening the door to alternate helmets those rules (whatever they are at first) will become more relaxed as time goes by?  That a newer team that doesn’t have a throwback helmet possibility from their history might want to try out an alt helmet too?  That Nike and the NFL might want to push another Color Rush type promotion, this time including helmets? I don’t know, maybe that is the dumbest thing you’ve ever read on this site, but even if it is, there seems to be more than a few people on here that agree with me.    

 

Using the very same logic that alternate jerseys were introduced in the 90’s and now there’s some teams have 4, teams also started to wear more than one helmet  for throwback purposes in the 90s and so far the NFL has never allowed alternate colored helmets for current uniforms. They actually restricted different helmets with the one helmet rule. They never relented on helmets despite some teams trying to introduce alternate helmets with modern sets.

[Jeffery]

38 minutes ago, Cujo said:

Here's your Colts uniform tweak -- pants reduced to a single-stripe.

 

 

They need to announce the real tweak so we can stop seeing this one "confirmed" every day.

[BrandMooreArt]

i'd definitely be for the single stripe on the pants. that feels like a nice refinement. 

 

i like the idea of using the helmet numbers on the jersey as well, another refined step forward. i wouldn't be for them using the "old block" though. thats going backwards, cool for a '58 throwback.

[_DietDrPepper_]

4 hours ago, Survival79 said:

 

Am I dumb? Where's the difference between the two logos, I never knew there was a difference 

[BrandMooreArt]

3 hours ago, _DietDrPepper_ said:

Am I dumb? Where's the difference between the two logos, I never knew there was a difference 

 

the one on the right is an actual player issued helmet. numbers on the back and all that. the logo is more condensed; not as wide

 

i have questions about the Irsay desk helmet. one, if it were a real 2020 helmet why the hell would he have one already sitting on his desk for everyone to see? sure its not like its a big change but thats odd. i wonder if its actually a retail helmet like you might buy in the team shop and if those logos vary

[IceCap]

Come on Colts. You know you want to...

 

 

[chakfu]

6 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Come on Colts. You know you want to...

 

 

 

 

We always complain about unnecessary accent colors (usually navy/black) so it's interesting to see an awful example from the early 80s.  I always cringe at the brainstormed gray accents for Browns and others.  I'd love to hear anecdote or oral histories about things like this. (I still dream of an oral history for the Nuggets rainbow uni and logo.)