Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[oldschoolvikings]

Hey, that's yet another great side benefit of the NFL's brilliant "One Helmet Rule".  As long teams are smartly limited to a single helmet, they are much less likely to do something stupid and hideous. They don't want to be stuck with an ugly helmet full time (unless they're Tampa, I guess). You could see something bad being brought out with the excuse that it's only one or two games.

 

Wow, the One Helmet Rule is the glorious gift that just keeps on giving. Here's hoping it never goes away.

[Gothamite]

A-freaking-men. 

 

We don't need an Oregon in the NFL. 

[SFGiants58]

29 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

Hey, that's yet another great side benefit of the NFL's brilliant "One Helmet Rule".  As long teams are smartly limited to a single helmet, they are much less likely to do something stupid and hideous. They don't want to be stuck with an ugly helmet full time (unless they're Tampa, I guess). You could see something bad being brought out with the excuse that it's only one or two games.

 

Wow, the One Helmet Rule is the glorious gift that just keeps on giving. Here's hoping it never goes away.

 

But muh throwback helmets! 

 

Yeah, throwback helmets (which are really only applicable to the Falcons and Bucs, as the Jets can just '94 their SB III set) are excuses to open the door for gimmicky garbage now. Imagine how much more awful Color Rush would have been without the One Helmet Rule.

[oldschoolvikings]

9 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

But muh throwback helmets! 

 

Yeah, throwback helmets (which are really only applicable to the Falcons and Bucs, as the Jets can just '94 their SB III set) are excuses to open the door for gimmicky garbage now. Imagine how much more awful Color Rush would have been without the One Helmet Rule.

 

Agreed. If the Falcons, Bucs, and Eagles are so interested in wearing helmets in those throwback colors, they should just redesign their terrible unlforms to the old looks full-time. 

[VikWings]

8 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

But muh throwback helmets! 

 

Yeah, throwback helmets (which are really only applicable to the Falcons and Bucs, as the Jets can just '94 their SB III set) are excuses to open the door for gimmicky garbage now. Imagine how much more awful Color Rush would have been without the One Helmet Rule.

 

7 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Agreed. If the Falcons, Bucs, and Eagles are so interested in wearing helmets in those throwback colors, they should just redesign their terrible unlforms to the old looks full-time. 

 

The rule affects the Patriots, Titans and Vikings too. And gives us those awful franken-throwbacks for the Packers (currently IDK why they don't use a navy or gray mask with those. The green looks terrible.) and has us missing out on the glorious faux-leather helmet for the Redskins throwbacks.

 

Nothing wrong with setting "one helmet, unless it's a throwback. No alternate helmets" rule, like the one they had before.

[dont care]

24 minutes ago, VikWings said:

 

 

The rule affects the Patriots, Titans and Vikings too. And gives us those awful franken-throwbacks for the Packers (currently IDK why they don't use a navy or gray mask with those. The green looks terrible.) and has us missing out on the glorious faux-leather helmet for the Redskins throwbacks.

 

Nothing wrong with setting "one helmet, unless it's a throwback. No alternate helmets" rule, like the one they had before.

How does it affect the Vikings? I doubt the finish matters that much. Atleast it’s still purple and would probably look better.

[SFGiants58]

34 minutes ago, VikWings said:

The rule affects the Patriots, Titans and Vikings too.

 

The Vikings can just use a mildly-inaccurate helmet, while the Patriots and Titans don't need throwbacks to Patriot Pat or the Oilers.

 

34 minutes ago, VikWings said:

And gives us those awful franken-throwbacks for the Packers (currently IDK why they don't use a navy or gray mask with those. The green looks terrible.) and has us missing out on the glorious faux-leather helmet for the Redskins throwbacks.

 

Honestly, it's not that awful. The green facemask looks close enough to navy (the one-helmet rule doesn't apply for facemasks, so they theoretically could use one). Also, I prefer the burgundy helmet to the faux-leather, as the faux-leather is a slight step too far.

 

34 minutes ago, VikWings said:

Nothing wrong with setting "one helmet, unless it's a throwback. No alternate helmets" rule, like the one they had before.

 

I hate to use the "slippery slope" argument (lord knows I've had it used against me for certain reasons), but Color Rush probably would have opened the floodgates for alternate helmets. Look at what the Rams have done with their identity. 

[Gothamite]

8 hours ago, VikWings said:

The rule affects the Patriots, Titans and Vikings too. And gives us those awful franken-throwbacks for the Packers

 

How are the Packers throwbacks affected by the one-helmet rule?  The originals used plain gold helmets too. 

 

8 hours ago, VikWings said:

(currently IDK why they don't use a navy or gray mask with those. The green looks terrible.)

 

I agree, but can only presume that they don’t think enough people notice the green to bother swapping all the facemasks. 

[Gothamite]

8 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

I hate to use the "slippery slope" argument (lord knows I've had it used against me for certain reasons), but Color Rush probably would have opened the floodgates for alternate helmets. Look at what the Rams have done with their identity. 

 

I don't think this is even in question.  If alternate  helmets were allowed under current rules, the NFL would have made them mandatory for Color Rush, just as they made Color Rush itself mandatory. 

[oldschoolvikings]

Yeah, this idea that the NFL would tell teams they can have a second helmet strictly for throwback purposes, and nothing more would ever happen is ridiculous. It's just some weird fantasy that only exists in the minds of members of this board... a world where a corporation would give that kind of nuanced thought to aesthetics over finances. What if they did, and the second helmet gave teams a bump in marketing, an extra mention on ESPN, something? What, teams that have always worn the same color shell just get left out?  Some pushy billionaire just sits on the sidelines and doesn't elbow his way in? No chance.

 

Don't kid yourself... A second helmet for anybody opens the floodgates. There's zero question about it.

[Old School Fool]

I believe the Seahawks tried to wear a silver helmet for road games in 2002 and the NFL shot it down. I don't buy that the NFL would allow alternate helmets outside of throwbacks or color rush because they're pretty hard headed about the overall brand of the league. Even if they did allow alternate helmets, I think there would be regulations on how it's done. It would probably be like hats in MLB.

[TBGKon]

4 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

How are the Packers throwbacks affected by the one-helmet rule?  The originals used plain gold helmets too. 

They used brown helmets originally with the current throwbacks.

 

[simtek34]

1 hour ago, AstroBull21 said:

They used brown helmets originally with the current throwbacks.

 

But those aren’t their current throwbacks.

[TBGKon]

43 minutes ago, simtek34 said:

But those aren’t their current throwbacks.

My mistake, I didn’t realize they changed them.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, these are the throwbacks they’ve used since 2015. 

 

 

Which may not be the best update of the 1930s/1940s originals, but the helmets are just fine. 

 

[Gothamite]

3 hours ago, Old School Fool said:

I believe the Seahawks tried to wear a silver helmet for road games in 2002 and the NFL shot it down. I don't buy that the NFL would allow alternate helmets outside of throwbacks or color rush because they're pretty hard headed about the overall brand of the league. Even if they did allow alternate helmets, I think there would be regulations on how it's done. It would probably be like hats in MLB.

 

That was then, this is now. 

 

Since the NFL (wisely) shot down the home-and-road helmet plan, they’ve expanded the options that teams and players can wear.  They’ve even forced reluctant clubs like the Packers to have an alternate uniform for the “Color Rush” promotions.  That’s how much they now care for “the overall brand of the league”.

 

It sure seems likely that the NFL would have adapted or repealed the one-helmet rule had they not backed themselves into a corner with the safety issue.  

[MilSox]

42 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Yeah, these are the throwbacks they’ve used since 2015. 

 

 

Which may not be the best update of the 1930s/1940s originals, but the helmets are just fine. 

 

 

I could deal with the technically incorrect jerseys if they just matched the friggin pants like they were towards the end of Lambeau's run.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

On 7/22/2019 at 3:28 PM, Still MIGHTY said:

When it comes to making an LA monogram, you definitely have to be creative at this point. We've seen more than a few, good and bad.

 

 

The Chargers are cowards for backing away from this logo.

[Gothamite]

4 hours ago, NicDB said:

 

I could deal with the technically incorrect jerseys if they just matched the friggin pants like they were towards the end of Lambeau's run.

 

Absolutely.  I’m not sure the pants were ever tan; at most, they were gold that had panels which read as tan under certain lighting conditions. 

 

 

The throwback pants really ought to be gold. 

 

 

[The_Admiral]

8 hours ago, Old School Fool said:

 I don't buy that the NFL would allow alternate helmets outside of throwbacks or color rush because they're pretty hard headed about the overall brand of the league.

 

Probably because of those helmets.