Patriots Unveil New Uniforms

[Froob]

11 hours ago, Digby said:

I think the "but the redcoats!" argument is a tired argument. People learn that Paul Revere didn't actually shout "The British are coming!" and everyone thinks they're a clever history expert now. They're a football team, not reenactors.

 

That said the Patriots shouldn't go back to red, not any more than the Los Angeles Lakers should switch back to blue jerseys full-time. Seems clear for sporting reasons. I can't believe this is the sports branding pitch that won't die.

Doubtful we ever go back to red but definitely should make a modern red alternate if Pat Patriot doesn’t return. I’ve always loved the idea of a flying elvis alternate red jersey.

[Old School Fool]

So, a team that is named after America in general shouldn't use a color that is associated with America and is on the flag? Yeah, sure...

 

The team only started wearing blue as of 1993. Nobody cared about that historical accuracy before and nobody should care now. Wanting them to skirt around the idea of using a prominent team color is how you get crap like this:

 

 

You get a team jerseys that look like they were dragged through a Boston street and not cleaned before the game.

 

As opposed to this, an actual decent looking jersey:

 

 

[BBTV]

4 hours ago, Old School Fool said:

Nobody cared about that historical accuracy before

 

How exactly do you know that?  Can you prove it?  

 

4 hours ago, Old School Fool said:

Wanting them to skirt around the idea of using a prominent team color is how you get crap like this:

 

This is like saying that "not wanting a dog is how you end up with an alligator."  First, they are using all their team colors.  Second, it's not like they're like "well, we don't want to use red, so I guess gray is the only other option".  It's likely that they thought they could sell things.  Also, they did have red jerseys, and wore them once or twice a year!

 

4 hours ago, Old School Fool said:

You get a team jerseys that look like they were dragged through a Boston street and not cleaned before the game.

 

Again, saying that this is a result of not wanting a red primary jersey is flawed.

 

 

Look - you like the red jerseys simply because they look good.  There's nothing wrong with that.  There's plenty of ways they could design a red uniform that I'd think would look good too.  I just don't think it's appropriate for a team that's named for such a specific literal thing.  It's not the same as the "are there any navy bears?  any green eagles?"

 

In every walk of life, blue is the predominant color that's used for the USA.  It's our "primary" color - whether it's our international sports uniforms (some of which do have alternate red versions, but to my knowledge always go with blue as the primary), official seals, and elsewhere.  The only counter to this might be that the marine corps flag is red, but that's the only anomaly I could find.

 

So again - there's nothing wrong with liking a red uniform for them because you think it looks good.  Totally fine.  But to dismiss the historical inaccuracy and walking contradiction they would be is wrong.  So basically "I know that it's inaccurate and why that matters to people, but I value what I think looks good over what's accurate, and for me that's red" is a better way for the opinion to be expressed.

[DCarp1231]

Yeah nothing says the New England Patriots HAVE to use red, whether it be in a jersey or even as a color at all.

[BBTV]

Taking other teams' colors out of the equation, blue and gold like the old Washington Caps uniforms would be fine.  Brown would probably be fine.  Blue, red, and white is obviously fine.  Red primary is pretty much the only option I can think of that should be avoided.

 

At the end of the day it's football and not real life, so I'm not going to jump off my roof if they switched to red, I just think it goes completely counter to their brand.

[tjs11]

37 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

How exactly do you know that?  Can you prove it?  

 

 

Dude. EVERYTHING posted in this forum is an opinion more or less. Stop asking for hard proof for every opinion. Just discuss it and disagree with it if you don't think something is true. No one has "thorough research" on opinions of football uniforms...

[Around the Horn]

On April 24, 2020 at 11:31 PM, simtek34 said:

Agreed. Even with the Redcoats argument, I’ve always preferred the White 60’s Throwback as a Uniform, ignoring the team name.

 

 

They really should have removed the flying Elvis from the sleeves and put the TV numbers there instead like this jersey... Beautiful.

 

EDIT: also a set of white pants

[BBTV]

7 minutes ago, tjs11 said:

 

Dude. EVERYTHING posted in this forum is an opinion more or less. Stop asking for hard proof for every opinion. Just discuss it and disagree with it if you don't think something is true. No one has "thorough research" on opinions of football uniforms...

 

Dude.  If someone claims that nobody cared, that's not a statement of opinion.  That's a precise statistic... and an incorrect one.

[1908_Cubs]

I always find the "Patriots can't wear read because it's historically inaccurate" point to be a little unfair.  No one says "Well, Eagles aren't green".  Hell, eagles eat fish. and sometime fish have green scales.  We can play this game for probably 33% of the league, if not more.  And I don't mean to call any single person out, it's just an observation that seems to come up with the Patriots over every other franchise.  Kind of seems if we're going to be calling for a team to be historically accurate for one, we should apply that logic to all teams.  Or, just take a step back and let it go for everyone.   If you think that, that's okay, just an observation, no digs meant.  Maybe I've missed these convo's in the past, I've been mostly a lurker, only been more recently active (it's been an interesting and active season for uniforms, so, ya'll get to have me around a little.  Lucky you ), so do forgive me if I had.  Hell, I literally teach the American Revolution for 45 days out of the year, every year.  I totally get the pedantic historic arguments (one of the reasons I can't stand historical movies, I get far too pedantic with them).  

 

I'm fine with the arguments against the Pats being a red team.  I think the old red uniforms look sharp, myself.  They're clean, pleasing to the eye.  I like the red-dominant red/blue team in a league where it tends to be blue dominant on red/blue teams (Houston, Giants, Bills).  I also understand a lot of people have connections to the Patriots in blue.  I'm not a Pats' fan (Eagles fan, to be clear), and I grew up as a kid throughout the 90's...so they've always been blue to me.  They've played in blue long enough to say they're a blue dominant team.  I'm fine with them being a red OR a blue team.  Just always feels like the argument for the Patriots being historically accurate just seems to apply to them, on conversations no one really has on other teams.  I can let the historical fact that the British wore red go, as long as the Patriots look good, personally.  

[tjs11]

7 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Dude.  If someone claims that nobody cared, that's not a statement of opinion.  That's a precise statistic... and an incorrect one.

So you can't read context, okay then. It's a sports logo forum. It was an opinion. When he chose the word nobody, I don't think he was thinking "this is a precise statistic". He was summing up what he felt and saw about the uniforms. Don't take every word literally. No need to be so abrasive. 

[BBTV]

8 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

I always find the "Patriots can't wear read because it's historically inaccurate" point to be a little unfair.  No one says "Well, Eagles aren't green". 

 

It's not even close to the same comparison.  For one, the Eagles aren't named for any one specific eagle.  Maybe if they were the Super Bowl LII Champion Philadelphia American Bald Eagles, then maybe I'd entertain that argument.  The Patriots are named after a very specific group of humans that wore uniforms and battled against other humans that were known for their red coats.  They are named for a very literal thing.  Even their Pat mascot wore a blue uniform.  

 

1 minute ago, tjs11 said:

So you can't read context, okay then. It's a sports logo forum. It was an opinion. When he chose the word nobody, I don't think he was thinking "this is a precise statistic". He was summing up what he felt and saw about the uniforms. Don't take every word literally. No need to be so abrasive. 

 

 

If you think I'm being abrasive, then perhaps you're a little sensitive?  I've backed up every opinion I've made with coherent arguments, rather than make indefensible statements that can't be supported.  I can be abrasive if you want me to, but I have a feeling that reading a bunch of posts that only contain [MOD EDIT] wouldn't help with the discussion.

[1908_Cubs]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

How exactly do you know that?  Can you prove it?  

 

 

This is like saying that "not wanting a dog is how you end up with an alligator."  First, they are using all their team colors.  Second, it's not like they're like "well, we don't want to use red, so I guess gray is the only other option".  It's likely that they thought they could sell things.  Also, they did have red jerseys, and wore them once or twice a year!

 

 

Again, saying that this is a result of not wanting a red primary jersey is flawed.

 

 

Look - you like the red jerseys simply because they look good.  There's nothing wrong with that.  There's plenty of ways they could design a red uniform that I'd think would look good too.  I just don't think it's appropriate for a team that's named for such a specific literal thing.  It's not the same as the "are there any navy bears?  any green eagles?"

 

In every walk of life, blue is the predominant color that's used for the USA.  It's our "primary" color - whether it's our international sports uniforms (some of which do have alternate red versions, but to my knowledge always go with blue as the primary), official seals, and elsewhere.  The only counter to this might be that the marine corps flag is red, but that's the only anomaly I could find.

 

So again - there's nothing wrong with liking a red uniform for them because you think it looks good.  Totally fine.  But to dismiss the historical inaccuracy and walking contradiction they would be is wrong.  So basically "I know that it's inaccurate and why that matters to people, but I value what I think looks good over what's accurate, and for me that's red" is a better way for the opinion to be expressed.

Honesty, I don't think it's that different than "There are no green Eagles" argument, myself.  Patriots are a specific subset of historical figures.  Eagles are specific subset of birds.  They're not parrots, ravens, crows.  There are no such thing as an eagle, of all 60 species, being green.  Patriots fought British troops who primarily wore red.  Some eagles, hunt fish, many of whom have green-ish scales.  I know it's a bit of a stretch, but I don't think it's that far, either.  

 

I do understand, it is a bit weird.  At least the Pat-the-Patriot logo was wearing a blue coat, which would far more fall under the "historical" category.  But I guess I can pass it off.  If you can't, I get that too.  

[Pharos04]

Personally i'd be fine if/when they introduce a Red alternate that ties into the new primary, so long as it doesn't get pressed to Primary status.  It'll come full circle as to why the Color Rush emulates the pre-1993 change as it is.  People who prefer the Pat Patriot look can still get the modern take on the same idea, the primary will still retain the Blue which is associated with the dominant era, and the White will look sharp either way. 

[BBTV]

9 minutes ago, 1908_Cubs said:

Honesty, I don't think it's that different than "There are no green Eagles" argument, myself.  Patriots are a specific subset of historical figures.  Eagles are specific subset of birds.  They're not parrots, ravens, crows.  There are no such thing as an eagle, of all 60 species, being green.  Patriots fought British troops who primarily wore red.  Some eagles, hunt fish, many of whom have green-ish scales.  I know it's a bit of a stretch, but I don't think it's that far, either.  

 

I do understand, it is a bit weird.  At least the Pat-the-Patriot logo was wearing a blue coat, which would far more fall under the "historical" category.  But I guess I can pass it off.  If you can't, I get that too.  

 

 

I get what you're saying, and while I disagree with the first part for reasons that I've stated, I do get where you're coming from.  The second paragraph is the important one though - specifically "I guess I can pass it off."  Ultimately, that's what we do, and when I was a kid, that's what I did as well.  If they ever switched back to red, I'd get over it pretty quickly and pass it off, as long as they acknowledged the inaccuracy by compensating elsewhere (like the mascot, and having blue merch.) 

 

So while I think it would be a mistake to go to red, and it would bother me, I'd get over it pretty quickly and just pass it off as them saying "yeah, it's wrong, but we just like red better."  Like I said, ain't nothing wrong with simply thinking that one thing looks better than another.

 

 

[MJWalker45]

9 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

It's not even close to the same comparison.  For one, the Eagles aren't named for any one specific eagle.  Maybe if they were the Super Bowl LII Champion Philadelphia American Bald Eagles, then maybe I'd entertain that argument.  The Patriots are named after a very specific group of humans that wore uniforms and battled against other humans that were known for their red coats.  They are named for a very literal thing.  Even their Pat mascot wore a blue uniform.  

 

 

 

If you think I'm being abrasive, then perhaps you're a little sensitive?  I've backed up every opinion I've made with coherent arguments, rather than make indefensible statements that can't be supported.  I can be abrasive if you want me to, but I have a feeling that reading a bunch of posts that only contain [MOD EDIT] wouldn't help with the discussion.

I still believe the main reason New England wore red was because of how many blue teams were in the AFL when they started.  Had the NY Titans, Bills or Chargees worn green, yellow or red as their primary jersey they may have gone with blue instead. 

[Hat Boy]

The Patriots in red would be like the Ole Miss Rebels wearing navy blue--the color of the Union army

 

it would be like the New Jersey Generals wearing red--the "color" of the Soviet Union

 

Only, for some reason, I've not seen anyone get fixated on that the way they do on the Patriots in red.

[SFGiants58]

Just now, Hat Boy said:

 

 

Only, for some reason, I've not seen anyone get fixated on that the way they do on the Patriots in red.

The Patriots are far higher-profile than Ole Miss (which has a far more controversial issue) and a defunct team. That’s why they get the added criticism.

[Sport]

 

On 4/24/2020 at 3:43 PM, TBGKon said:

Agreed, those Bengals CR white unis are a solid foundation.  Mix in a touch of orange in the sleeves and pant stripes.  I've also always thought the Bengals should be an orange home jersey team, would you agree or would you prefer black @Sport

 

No other teams wear orange as their primary jersey color so they could own it, but it can look really bad if worn against the wrong opponents

 

 

 

Over the white pants and with orange socks is the only way to wear an orange jersey. I absolutely hate when they wear the orange jerseys with the black pants

 

 

Kind of amazing that while all these other teams are going crazy with alternate pants options the Bengals have never once tried some orange trousers. 

 

 

long story short, I prefer black jerseys over white pants with black socks. That's still my favorite Bengals look. 

[SFGiants58]

1 minute ago, Sport said:

 

 

No other teams wear orange as their primary jersey color so they could own it, but it can look really bad if worn against the wrong opponents

 

 

The Broncos exist. Unless something radical has happened to them, they still have orange jerseys as their primaries (just make sure to never wear them in the Super Bowl, obviously).

 

Still, the Bengals were at their best with black jerseys, white pants, and orange socks, IMO:

 

 

It helps distinguish them from the Browns a bit. Black socks really don't suit them as well, especially since they guarantee the leotard design. Ideally, the Bengals should be:

 

Home: black jerseys, white pants, orange socks

Road: white jerseys, black pants, orange socks

Alternate: orange jerseys, white pants, orange socks

"Color Rush": what they have now

[DCarp1231]

I’d rather not derail the thread into even more Cincy-Jacked territory, but if the Browns and even the Broncos aren’t going to be the ones to embrace orange as a main color, the Bengals need to be the ones to do it.