Patriots Unveil New Uniforms

[IceCap]

4 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

“swooshketeer”

I called one guy that, because he (in the Falcons thread) was going on in one post about unfair everyone was to Nike. It was basically this, just swap Sears out for Nike...

 

https://youtu.be/zxJi0GjnD_w

[canzman]

22 minutes ago, Tygers09 said:

See for me, the navy & silver, just doesn't fit right; royal blue, white & red should be their team colors. These darker shades that are a popular trend in sport uniforms today just make the uniforms look dreary, morib and depressing. Do I need to add any more adjectives?

I think what it boils down to is the darker colors are seen and more intimidating. Think Darth Vader all black or the imagery of a ninja, etc. Also think military uniforms and I am not talking camo either but other uniforms. Think WWII Germany etc all went with these very dark shades. Brighter colors tend to be more light hearted. Think of baby toys and baby clothing and such all lighter more vibrant colors. Golden era super hero  were the same (Superman in the bright blue and red and yellow). I think for the most part from a psychology standpoint teams want to come of as intimidating thus the lean is towards darker colors/shades in most cases. They might use a bright color as an accent or a pop but what the majority to be darker color. At least that is what it appears to me.

[IceCap]

39 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

So the stripes being used on the jersey and pants aren’t traditional? 
 

Obviously it’s lacking a needed second pair of pants, but that’s not holding it back from being an otherwise traditional look.

You seem to be operating under the flawed assumption that I, and most people here, take a "traditional= good/modern= bad" attitude, and you're attempting to catch people in some sort of hypocritical "gotcha" moment.

It's silly and insulting because that's not what the people you're painting with a broad brush think. 

 

I think the Pats' new unis look underwhelming (I wouldn't say bad) because of the monochrome (sorry, I just don't like it) and the inconsistent striping widths between the pants and jerseys. 

I don't care if the striping is "traditional" or not. What they have just doesn't look good to me. 

 

Just like with the Falcons. I don't dislike that set because it's "modern." I dislike it because what they presented doesn't work for me. The Patriots unveiled a set with traditional football stylings and I don't care for it. So yeah. I'd have loved a modern Falcons set had they gone in a direction I preferred.

 

It's not about traditional vs modern, it's about what people find good or not. Trying to paint everyone with a broad brush of "traditionalist" and framing likes and dislikes in these very limited boxes of "traditional" and "modern" displays either a lack of understanding of what people actually like or don't like or it's an attempt to belittle and dismiss someone else's opinion out of hand. 

[joey joe joe jr. shabadoo]

2 hours ago, Lights Out said:

This new set has the same problem as the Falcons' new uniforms. They look like a cheap catalog order, not worthy of a professional franchise. Although in this case, they look like a Division 3 college football team as opposed to how the Falcons look like an arena football team.

 

It still boggles the mind how the Patriots managed to come up with the perfect uniforms for themselves, ditch them after one season, and then never bring them back even for a throwback game. Every change they've made since 1993 has been a downgrade (except for arguably the red facemasks) and this is no exception.

 

 

True or not...I do recall when these were first unveiled there were rumblings that Parcells wanted something of a NY Giant-ish look/identity for them. 

[WSU151]

29 minutes ago, Krudler said:

What sucks is they have used white pants for a makeshift road color rush in recent years. Could have just made those the home pants with the updated shoulder stripes.

 

 

I really don't get why people think the pants should be white and not silver. Silver ties into the helmet. The Patriots have worn silver/gray pants for 27 years. Silver pants are fine. 

 

The pants above have the Texans striping problem. 

[oldschoolvikings]

1 hour ago, Maroon&Gold said:

 Other than the lack of silver/white pants I can't see how this is a downgrade

 

Well, then, I guess you can see how this is a downgrade.

[DCarp1231]

2 minutes ago, IceCap said:

You seem to be operating under the flawed assumption that I, and most people here, take a "traditional= good/modern= bad" attitude, and you're attempting to catch people in some sort of hypocritical "gotcha" moment.

It's silly and insulting because that's not what the people you're painting with a broad brush think. 

 

No, that’s not at all what I meant. I was trying to grasp a better understanding of your thoughts. We all have opinions, but I just wasn’t sure what you meant. No disrespect intended.

 

I’m not gonna act like some of these certain fools on here lol

[joey joe joe jr. shabadoo]

21 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

 

While their current look has to go, the Cardinals don't have any beauts in their closet IMO. The logo is great but they can start the uniforms from scratch. If they HAVE to keep the helmet, then I agree it requires a traditional look, but they really shouldn't settle for their previous looks.

 

They definitely won't go back to their 1960-1993 base look, but a 2020's re imagining of it without any of the bizarre, unnecessary pipings and panels would be very well received

 

 

[See Red]

58 minutes ago, canzman said:

Depends on the interpretation of should.

1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.

2. used to indicate what is probable.
 

If you use the first meaning obligation or correctness it is required. If you use the second as in probable then it is optional.

 

It depends on if NFL rules are meant to be interpreted the same way legal writing is, which I would assume is the case.

 

If you remember the Paris climate change agreement, it was almost derailed because an instance of the word "should" was changed to "shall" after an agreement was in place.  This small change made what came after it a requirement rather than a guideline.  "Should" creates a gray area where "must" or "shall" doesn't.  Considering the rule (see quote below) says the numbers on the front and back MUST be a certain size, and then that uniforms SHOULD have shoulder numbers, it would seem they're not required.

 

Quote

Numerals on the back and front of jerseys as specified under NFL rules for the player’s specific position. Such numerals must be a minimum of 8 inches high and 4 inches wide, and their color must be in sharp contrast with the color of the jersey. Smaller numerals should be worn on the tops of the shoulders or upper arms of the jersey.

 

[IceCap]

4 hours ago, henburg said:

and they often gang up on others who disagree whether it be intentional or not

Say you have a room of five people. And you show those five people a painting. 

Four of them dislike it. One person likes it. 

 

Is the one guy who likes it getting "ganged up on"?

[SFGiants58]

8 minutes ago, IceCap said:

I called one guy that, because he (in the Falcons thread) was going on in one post about unfair everyone was to Nike. It was basically this, just swap Sears out for Nike...

 

https://youtu.be/zxJi0GjnD_w

You’ve called people like Volt and Lights Out things like that all the time. Just because somebody like Nike’s work doesn’t make their opinion invalid.

 

25 minutes ago, IceCap said:

I can't speak for anyone else but...

 

The context here is that hockey week was claiming the then new/current Florida Panthers primary was merely "meh" but that people were trashing it because it wasn't their classic logo. hockey week was arguing that only old/classic stuff is lauded here, while anything new (even if it's merely mediocre) gets labelled "the worst." 

 

 

I understood the context and very much agree with him now. Like, the most well-received football redesigns here have been the Bills, Bucs, and Browns. 

 

25 minutes ago, IceCap said:

 

Now here's where I get to the part about me only being able to speak for myself...

I like(d) the then new/current Florida Panthers primary logo. Like...I really like it, and that's saying something because I really like the classic logo too. The classic logo has a lot going for it in my opinion too. It's got a late 80s/early 90s aesthetic I love, plus built in nostalgia (the 1996 Stanley Cup Final between Colorado and Florida is the first Cup Final I have concrete memories of). 

 

So if what you and hockey week and DNA and Chromatic and so on are saying is true? I should hate the Panthers' current logo. It's not the classic logo I both aesthetic and nostalgic preferences for. And yet I'm perfectly fine with the new logo they have. I dig it. 

 

 

Well, let’s just say it’s mostly true. There are always nuances and exceptions.

 

25 minutes ago, IceCap said:

And THIS is what osv, infrared, and Goth are getting at. It's unfair to paint everyone with such a derogatory brush as "this place hates everything new/this place just likes to complain."

 

Except I wasn’t. I was trying to point out a significant trend/general cultural construct on the boards. The loudest and “most esteemed” voices tend to spout this off the most.

 

25 minutes ago, IceCap said:

 

As I explained above? I'm one of the people who overall likes classic looks, thinks newer trends tend to look silly, but also likes new stuff when I think it's done well. 

Fair. What’s your definition of “done well,” if I may ask?
 

25 minutes ago, IceCap said:

 

Whether you intend to or not you dismiss my own legitimate opinions- and the complexities within them- in a broad stroke when you say that sort of stuff. And I'm not unique in that regard. You do it to everyone's own complex and varied tastes when you try to tell us we all just like the same stuff and hate anything that deviates. 
 

 

Except I wasn’t, so much as I was noticing a trend and using labels to help simplify my argument about the general state of the boards. These labels, like it or not, are useful and are often fairly accurate in assessing tastes. Granted, I went a bit too deep with it and devolved into making generalizations, but I felt like it needed to be said. The reception the initial observation got kind of proved my point.

 

25 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Yes I agree. A merely ok Pats uniform with equal parts good and bad is probably not the place to start painting everyone with such a broad brush. 

 

It needed to happen sooner or later.

 

25 minutes ago, IceCap said:

 

I mean no place is, really, but this seems like a bit of an underwhelming venue for this particular strawman to get set ablaze for. 

It’s not a strawman, it’s me noticing a trend.

 

Once again, I apologize for my conduct.

[TrueYankee26]

50 minutes ago, canzman said:

So here is what we would get if they rolled out silver or white pants.

A thing of beauty, Pats should have gone with Silver helmet or pants or make them all white

[SFGiants58]

5 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Say you have a room of five people. And you show those five people a painting. 

Four of them dislike it. One person likes it. 

 

Is the one guy who likes it getting "ganged up on"?

It depends on how you treat the one guy.

[GhostOfNormMacdonald]

10 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Well, then, I guess you can see how this is a downgrade.

Well I see people saying the jerseys are downgrades even though they got rid of the God-awful panels

[IceCap]

2 hours ago, AndrewMLind said:

 

I prefer big dogs 

[canzman]

Did some googling and found this... guess this puts and end to the speculation.
 

Quote

"Numbers are always worn on the front and back of a player's jersey, and so-called "TV numbers" are worn on the sleeve or shoulder. The Cincinnati Bengals were the last NFL team to wear jerseys without TV numbers on a regular basis in 1980, though since then several NFL teams have worn throwback uniforms without them, as their jersey designs predated the introduction of TV numbers. In 2007, the Cleveland Browns, Philadelphia Eagles, and Pittsburgh Steelers wore throwback jerseys without TV numbers. Players' last names, however, are required on all uniforms, even throwbacks which predate the last name rule. Since 2008, TV numbers have not been mandatory under NFL rules."

 

[VMC5150]

Best pants ever... 

[oldschoolvikings]

10 minutes ago, canzman said:

Did some googling and found this... guess this puts and end to the speculation.
 

 

 

That's weird for two reasons.  First, it was mentioned somewhere in the Browns thread that their uber plain color rush got nixed due to lack of TV numbers, and two, if it's been off the books for 12 years, it's odd that it took this long for someone to give it a go.

[Claystation360]

14 minutes ago, canzman said:

Did some googling and found this... guess this puts and end to the speculation.
 

 

I guess HDTV officially made them obsolete.

[canzman]

7 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

That's weird for two reasons.  First, it was mentioned somewhere in the Browns thread that their uber plain color rush got nixed due to lack of TV numbers, and if it's been off the books for 12 years, it's odd that o\it took this long for someone to give it a go.

What is might boil down to is that the numbers are difficult to place on the Pats with this design so the NFL is fine with not having it. The Browns design does not prevent them so the NFL refused the request as it seems clear the NFL prefers that they are there.

 

I think the Panthers could get away with not having them as well as what they are are so ridiculous and small given the current design. If a team elects to have them even if small the NFL is fine with it but would also be fine with them not being there.

 

Pats opted out and Panthers opted in. Browns didn't have the option as they could put them on either the sleeve or shoulder and the design wasn't a throwback for historical accuracy.