Tampa Bay Buccaneers Unveil New Uniforms

[JayMac]

I never got the "they were successful in those uniforms, so those are good or better uniforms" line of thinking. The Seahawks looked amazing from 1976 to 2001 (even better when they put the logo on the sleeve). Their look now is by far the worst but they won a Super Bowl in them. 

 

I like to call this line of thinking "success blinders".

 

On topic now - I still can't decide between the Bucco Bruce era or the Pewter 1.0 era. The former is a look that is perfect for a Florida team. The latter is a great look for a pirate team.

[BBTV]

21 hours ago, imawalkingcorpse said:

I guess if people wanted to see it that way. Every Buccaneers fan I know equates the pewter to losing now. They haven't won since the 2003 season. 

 

It's be 18 years since their lucky super bowl season, but if people equate pewter to losing, then how the hell do they equate orange to anything else?  Not sure how old you are, but I grew up with them in orange, and they were a complete laughing stock.  

 

1 hour ago, imawalkingcorpse said:

Nahh a lot of people don't like them. But my opinion doesn't matter because after the Bux got bent over by the Patriots for an old broken player I am no longer a fan.

 

I'm not sure what being a fan has to do with critiquing a uniform.  Maybe a fan would "get" some of the design elements more, but an overall critique shouldn't have anything to do with whether you like the team or not.

 

Also, while a lot of people may not like them (I take that that's simply anecdotal on your part), a lot more do like them, and I think by any objective measure, it's been a success.  We're all entitled to our opinion, but presenting yours as representative of the majority is not a great idea.

[Digby]

13 minutes ago, JayMac said:

I never got the "they were successful in those uniforms, so those are good or better uniforms" line of thinking. The Seahawks looked amazing from 1976 to 2001 (even better when they put the logo on the sleeve). Their look now is by far the worst but they won a Super Bowl in them. 

 

I like to call this line of thinking "success blinders".

 

On topic now - I still can't decide between the Bucco Bruce era or the Pewter 1.0 era. The former is a look that is perfect for a Florida team. The latter is a great look for a pirate team.

 

Design does not exist in a vacuum; we don't design things just to score points on someone's arbitrary aesthetics scale. What makes a look the right one for a given team? Said team's history and success should play a role in determining that answer.

[IceCap]

25 minutes ago, JayMac said:

I never got the "they were successful in those uniforms, so those are good or better uniforms" line of thinking. The Seahawks looked amazing from 1976 to 2001 (even better when they put the logo on the sleeve). Their look now is by far the worst but they won a Super Bowl in them. 

 

I like to call this line of thinking "success blinders".

The reason I think this is important is because titles are not guaranteed. The Bucs are a perfect example of this. They won the Super Bowl, made the playoffs twice afterwards, and haven't been back to the post-season since.

So it's important for a team to look their best, to create a connection to their best years. Say the Bucs were still wearing the stupid alarm clock unis. Some kid who's a fan watches a documentary on the Super Bowl team and sees them in different (and better) unis. It creates a disconnect if the team he roots for comes Sunday looks different. Now with the Bucs it wouldn't be so bad, because the alarm clock unis still maintained enough of the DNA of the Super Bowl set where you could tell it was the same team, but you can see where this would be a problem with teams like the LA Kings for example. Where the championships come in one colour but the door is open for them to go with different colours all together.

Since no title is guaranteed? I think it's important for teams to not futz too much with their look should they win won. Otherwise you end up like the Houston Rockets and St. Louis/LA Rams, who win it all in one look and change immediately afterwards, the new identity now associated with a post-title downturn instead of continued success.

 

This was the one knock against the otherwise excellent creamsicle set. It is hard to shake the fact that 1) they had a lot of bad years in it and 2) they won a Super Bowl in the red and pewter. That's the height of Bucs football, and I can understand the desire to evoke that with the uniforms.

 

@Digby also has a point. Design is informed by other factors. What's the difference between the classic Cowboys look everyone loves despite mismatching colours and the old Chicago/St. Louis/Arizona Cardinals unis people insist they can't wear again? The difference is success. Those old Cardinals jerseys would be considered untouchable if they'd won five Super Bowls in them.

 

 

 

[imawalkingcorpse]

28 minutes ago, Digby said:

 

Design does not exist in a vacuum; we don't design things just to score points on someone's arbitrary aesthetics scale. What makes a look the right one for a given team? Said team's history and success should play a role in determining that answer.

Outside of about 7 years the history of the team has been awful. The awful years now far outweigh the good years for the pewter.

[jws008]

25 minutes ago, IceCap said:

The reason I think this is important is because titles are not guaranteed. The Bucs are a perfect example of this. They won the Super Bowl, made the playoffs twice afterwards, and haven't been back to the post-season since.

So it's important for a team to look their best, to create a connection to their best years. Say the Bucs were still wearing the stupid alarm clock unis. Some kid who's a fan watches a documentary on the Super Bowl team and sees them in different (and better) unis. It creates a disconnect if the team he roots for comes Sunday looks different. Now with the Bucs it wouldn't be so bad, because the alarm clock unis still maintained enough of the DNA of the Super Bowl set where you could tell it was the same team, but you can see where this would be a problem with teams like the LA Kings for example. Where the championships come in one colour but the door is open for them to go with different colours all together.

Since no title is guaranteed? I think it's important for teams to not futz too much with their look should they win won. Otherwise you end up like the Houston Rockets and St. Louis/LA Rams, who win it all in one look and change immediately afterwards, the new identity now associated with a post-title downturn instead of continued success.

 

This was the one knock against the otherwise excellent creamsicle set. It is hard to shake the fact that 1) they had a lot of bad years in it and 2) they won a Super Bowl in the red and pewter. That's the height of Bucs football, and I can understand the desire to evoke that with the uniforms.

 

@Digby also has a point. Design is informed by other factors. What's the difference between the classic Cowboys look everyone loves despite mismatching colours and the old Chicago/St. Louis/Arizona Cardinals unis people insist they can't wear again? The difference is success. Those old Cardinals jerseys would be considered untouchable if they'd won five Super Bowls in them.

 

 

 

Two other examples, IMHO, on how winning reflects on uniforms:

 

1. The classic Jets uniform would be much less loved if Namath and company had not won Super Bowl III in them.
[An aside: One of the best Dave Barry lines ever is that "The American Revolution is the greatest event in American history, with the exception of Super Bowl III (Jets 16, Colts 7, this historian won $20)."]

 

2. The Steelers helmet would have a logo on both sides by now without the Super Bowl wins (it's also possible that they would have decided to ditch that logo completely by now).

 

I await the "you're wrong!" responses.

[Digby]

6 minutes ago, imawalkingcorpse said:

Outside of about 7 years the history of the team has been awful. The awful years now far outweigh the good years for the pewter.

 

I mean, not many teams get a sustained run at success -- all it takes is one win to be the memorable image etched in everyone's mind. Might not make rational sense, but that's sports. (And when the contrast is the incredible futility of the creamsicle years, well...)

[FiddySicks]

22 hours ago, imawalkingcorpse said:

I guess if people wanted to see it that way. Every Buccaneers fan I know equates the pewter to losing now. They haven't won since the 2003 season. 

 

Oh, do they now? 

 

You have a very interesting take. It’s wrong, but still. Very interesting! 

[FiddySicks]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

It's be 18 years since their lucky super bowl season, but if people equate pewter to losing, then how the hell do they equate orange to anything else?  Not sure how old you are, but I grew up with them in orange, and they were a complete laughing stock.  

 

 

 

 

Sorry, back to back posts here. There’s just SO much to unpack!

[imawalkingcorpse]

1 hour ago, FiddySicks said:

 

Oh, do they now? 

 

You have a very interesting take. It’s wrong, but still. Very interesting! 

There is only one reason there is any interest in the Bucs this season and it is because of Brady. They could have gone back to creamsicle full time and everyone would have worn a Brady jersey.

[hormone]

3 hours ago, imawalkingcorpse said:

I gotcha. I have been a fan since 79, but they don't care about winning, only selling jersey's and hot dogs at the stadium. 

Someone tell the mothership they are famous. Winston using his burner on the forums

[Sec19Row53]

4 hours ago, imawalkingcorpse said:

I gotcha. I have been a fan since 79, but they don't care about winning, only selling jersey's and hot dogs at the stadium. 

Jersey's what?

 

[sorrynotsorry]

[BBTV]

3 hours ago, jws008 said:

Two other examples, IMHO, on how winning reflects on uniforms:

 

1. The classic Jets uniform would be much less loved if Namath and company had not won Super Bowl III in them.
[An aside: One of the best Dave Barry lines ever is that "The American Revolution is the greatest event in American history, with the exception of Super Bowl III (Jets 16, Colts 7, this historian won $20)."]

 

2. The Steelers helmet would have a logo on both sides by now without the Super Bowl wins (it's also possible that they would have decided to ditch that logo completely by now).

 

I await the "you're wrong!" responses.

 

I don't know if "you're wrong!", but there's no evidence to support either of your claims, and it's impossible for you to prove them.

[GFB]

 

 

Circling back around to the helmet decal size, these photoshops were created by the team themselves, and both of these graphics have the smaller helmet decal (click to enlarge)

 

[UnclearInitial]

16 hours ago, IceCap said:

Image is busted.

 

Regardless, I'm happy with what the team went with.

Thanks. Should be fixed now. I'm pretty happy with the change too, it was just a tweak to the Color Rush which is completely soulless

[daniel75]

47 minutes ago, UnclearInitial said:

Thanks. Should be fixed now. I'm pretty happy with the change too, it was just a tweak to the Color Rush which is completely soulless

Just not enough orange in the helmet to balance it. But the Jersey itself isn't bad looking.

[colortv]

Has the red been tweaked from the original pewter/red uniforms?

[GhostOfNormMacdonald]

14 minutes ago, colortv said:

Has the red been tweaked from the original pewter/red uniforms?

I think it is supposed to be the 1997 shade

[TornadoGTS]

Yes they went back to the '97-'13 shade of red (Pantone 187)

[jws008]

21 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

I don't know if "you're wrong!", but there's no evidence to support either of your claims, and it's impossible for you to prove them.

By the same criteria, considering that the Jets did win Super Bowl III and that the Steelers have their Super Bowl wins, there's also no evidence to support the contrary claims, and it's also impossible, therefore, for anyone to prove them as well.

 

And, I did preface my comments with IMHO, so it's also not as though I was meaning to present them as facts.  

 

(I mean by all this, that I'm fine with anyone saying, "You're wrong!" or disagreeing with me)