Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Nike pays the NFL a lot of money.  More than anybody else said they wanted to pay the NFL. And so from the league’s perspective, everything is just fine. 

It's also possible that the NFL finds Nike's more out there work desirable in a planned obsolescence sort of way. Go crazy, most people hate it, but fans buy new merch anyway. Then, five years later, sell the same fanbase a version of the uniforms they ditched. People will buy it up, happy to be rid of the past "mistake."

First the Jags, now the Bucs and Browns. We might see the Rams redesign in five years if the negative backlash against their logo carries to the uniforms. There's something to be said for being in the "unfortunate" position of having to redo things in five years. Like all the extra cash you can rake in for a few short years of ridicule.

 

3 minutes ago, L10nheart404 said:

Dude... Never did I ever present anything as factual. Stop saying that. Simply put, some people are really over criticizing a few uniforms based off personal preference, when in actuality, the base of them are pretty fine.

You say you're not presenting your opinions as facts...only to follow it up with presenting your opinions as facts. I dare say that most people who criticize the Lions, Jags, Dolphins, Jets, and Vikings' unis don't think they're "pretty fine."

You attempting to reduce their opinions to "over criticizing" is the problem- you're essentially trying to dismiss their own opinions and present your opinion as the only logical one.

 

4 minutes ago, L10nheart404 said:

Whether you agree or not, the point was that if we base every rebrand off what we personally wanted, Nike, more anyone else, will never be good enough. It's great to have an opinion, that's why we discuss things here...Duh! But, as stated, you can't tell me a uniform is bad because you personally like block numbers over a custom font.

Um yes. It's an opinion, dude. If I dislike a number font? I dislike a number font. And sometimes it's not enough to ruin a look (Minnesota, Philadelphia) but sometime it is (Tampa Bay). I can tell you a uniform is bad for whatever reason I think it may be bad 🤷‍♂️

 

Quote

All I'm saying is, some of these uniforms aren't the walking piss stain some people want them to be.

In your opinion. Others do find these uniforms legitimately lacking in enough ways to find them subpar. You're not wrong, of course. Neither are they though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, IceCap said:

It's also possible that the NFL finds Nike's more out there work desirable in a planned obsolescence sort of way. Go crazy, most people hate it, but fans buy new merch anyway. Then, five years later, sell the same fanbase a version of the uniforms they ditched. People will buy it up, happy to be rid of the past "mistake."

First the Jags, now the Bucs and Browns. We might see the Rams redesign in five years if the negative backlash against their logo carries to the uniforms. There's something to be said for being in the "unfortunate" position of having to redo things in five years. Like all the extra cash you can rake in for a few short years of ridicule.

 

You say you're not presenting your opinions as facts...only to follow it up with presenting your opinions as facts. I dare say that most people who criticize the Lions, Jags, Dolphins, Jets, and Vikings' unis don't think they're "pretty fine."

You attempting to reduce their opinions to "over criticizing" is the problem- you're essentially trying to dismiss their own opinions and present your opinion as the only logical one.

 

Um yes. It's an opinion, dude. If I dislike a number font? I dislike a number font. And sometimes it's not enough to ruin a look (Minnesota, Philadelphia) but sometime it is (Tampa Bay). I can tell you a uniform is bad for whatever reason I think it may be bad 🤷‍♂️

 

In your opinion. Others do find these uniforms legitimately lacking in enough ways to find them subpar. You're not wrong, of course. Neither are they though.

What you're missing is, this isn't a right/wrong conversation. We all have our likes/dislikes. That's understood. On the surface, was the Jags rebrand a failure for not adding gold? To some absolutely. But that doesn't bring the uniform down as a whole in my eyes. If they add a touch of gold, the uniforms are automatically a success to those who hate it. Which ostensibly means the uniforms are good, but it just needs a touch of gold to make it satisfactory. All in all,  this is the only place for a guy like me who loves uniforms and the little details. But even I can see some people are just too hard to please if things aren't exactly the way they want them, and that's not fair to judge someone's work that way. Especially if it's not made specifically for that person.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, L10nheart404 said:

Which ostensibly means the uniforms are good, but it just needs a touch of gold to make it satisfactory.

That's a good point, but for some people even a small accent colour is a deal breaker. The Bucs' thread has enough people lamenting the potential loss of orange from a set that otherwise seems like it will mirror the popular Super Bowl look.

Looking at other sports? The Boston Bruins are one of the NHL's oldest teams. They had a long history of wearing gold socks despite wearing black sweaters. Until very recently when they switched to black socks to "streamline' their look. Aesthetically it probably does look better, but a lot of fans think the minor change in sock collar ruined the identity. And in basketabll? The Lakers' change from a richer athletic gold to a bright yellow- merely different shades of the same colour- has caused a lot of people to dislike the team's otherwise classic identity.

 

People like us are a particular lot who tend to pay attention to things most people don't (go ahead and try to tell a normal person about all the pants stripe variations the Browns had before their last redesign and see how that goes 😛). As a result? many of us can be turned off of an otherwise fine look by relatively small details. It's part of who we are.

 

Personally? The thing that keeps me from liking the Vikings' look is the way the sleeve stripe flares up in the back. The custom numbers aren't my cup of tea, but I could live with them if the sleeve stripes were just basic stripes. Instead they got cute with them and it just bugs me.

That's me though, and I'm sure someone else will look at that identity and go "eh it's close enough to the throwbacks I like, so I like it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Froob said:

People don’t like the Vikings jerseys? Why?

I'm unsure how to answer that aside from saying "read my post directly above yours."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IceCap said:

The Boston Bruins are one of the NHL's oldest teams. They had a long history of wearing gold socks despite wearing black sweaters. Until very recently when they switched to black socks to "streamline' their look. Aesthetically it probably does look better, but a lot of fans think the minor change in sock collar ruined the identity. 

 

Wait, when did this happen? I totally missed that. This just made my day worse.

 

 

I'm not kidding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, the only thing keeping the Vikings uniform from being 10/10 are the socks not having stripes. They definitely need them when wearing purple pants:

 

spacer.png

 

I use to be a stickler about the serifs only being used on the first number in a double digit set, but they’ve grown on me. I honestly hardly ever notice them.

 

Right now, Minnesota sits at a hot 9.75/10 on the best Nike Redesign scale.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

IMO, the only thing keeping the Vikings uniform from being 10/10 are the socks not having stripes.

 

Mostly agree. Occasional problem for me is when the purple in the uniform and the purple in the helmet are different. Probably just wetness or something, but it bugs me. Cowboys used to have it much worse. 

 

Totally agree on the serifs ... Vikes' numerals are conspicuously awesome on fields littered with regrettable new numeral stylings. 

Roethlisberger's'7' bugs me.

 

 

spacer.png

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BroncoBuff said:

 

Mostly agree. Occasional problem for me is when the purple in the uniform and the purple in the helmet are different. Probably just wetness or something, but it bugs me. Cowboys used to have it much worse.

 

spacer.png

 

 

 

That photo looks like it’s from a season before last year. They corrected the color issue before the start of the 2019 season.


New on left, old on right

spacer.png
 

From this past season:

spacer.png

 

From a previous season:

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you! I'm all in then, 9.7/10. 

 

The re-designed helmet logo pops out better than the old one too. Color rushes look pretty good too. I don't know, I prefer both teams wear color Rush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BroncoBuff said:

Thank you! I'm all in then, 9.7/10. 

 

The re-designed helmet logo pops out better than the old one too. Color rushes look pretty good too. I don't know, I prefer both teams wear color Rush.

I'd prefer Color Rush be completely dumped. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

I'd prefer Color Rush be completely dumped. 

I think I’d be just okay with the Vikings Color Rush if the sleeve and pants stripes were returned to normal. Keeping the numbers yellow is all they need.

 

As far as Color Rush as a whole? It’s produced a lot of great looks for teams. Saints, Broncos, Giants, Cowboys, to name a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

I think I’d be just okay with the Vikings Color Rush if the sleeve and pants stripes were returned to normal. Keeping the numbers yellow is all they need.

 

As far as Color Rush as a whole? It’s produced a lot of great looks for teams. Saints, Broncos, Giants, Cowboys, to name a few.

 

I think Color Rush created some decent individual uniform pieces, but as long as the mandate was/is to match the jersey and pants color, the only Color Rush uniforms that weren't garbage were the all white ones. And of those, the only one better than the team's regular uniform IMO was the Saints.

 

The Vikings Color Rush makes me angry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DNAsports said:

IMO, the only thing keeping the Vikings uniform from being 10/10 are the socks not having stripes. They definitely need them when wearing purple pants:

 

spacer.png

 

I use to be a stickler about the serifs only being used on the first number in a double digit set, but they’ve grown on me. I honestly hardly ever notice them.

 

Right now, Minnesota sits at a hot 9.75/10 on the best Nike Redesign scale.

 

It's very nice, but I can't get past that first number.  I also believe that they made the sleeve detail like that so that there was a nice space carved out for the swoosh, that in the absence of any team mark there, looks like it could be a team logo (not dissimilar to what they've done on other jerseys too.)

 

Also, the pants stripes should be reversed.  This is just a personal 'rule', but when there's asymmetrical stripes of different widths, the wider one should be in front.  Again, just a personal preference.

 

Overall I do like them, but those things prevent me from putting them in the top tier of NFL uniforms.  They're solidly somewhere in the second tier... which ain't bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

I think Color Rush created some decent individual uniform pieces, but as long as the mandate was/is to match the jersey and pants color, the only Color Rush uniforms that weren't garbage were the all white ones. And of those, the only one better than the team's regular uniform IMO was the Saints.

 

The Vikings Color Rush makes me angry.

For the Saints uniforms, the set should be as followed (let’s pretend the golds and number fonts match):

 

HOME

spacer.png

 

AWAY

spacer.png

 

HOME ALT

spacer.png

 

AWAY ALT

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, those are damn near perfect (as you say, assuming the CR number font throughout, and matching the CR gold).  If I was picking out the combos, I can't imagine a time that I'd think black jerseys / white pants would be the way to go, but otherwise, spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

Yep, those are damn near perfect (as you say, assuming the CR number font throughout, and matching the CR gold).  If I was picking out the combos, I can't imagine a time that I'd think black jerseys / white pants would be the way to go, but otherwise, spot on.

Better than the black pants or the plain white options though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Browns, Chargers, Bucs have all committed to April releases. What are the other teams waiting for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, colortv said:

Browns, Chargers, Bucs have all committed to April releases. What are the other teams waiting for?

Patriots, possibly 14 April. Falcons as well yet to confirm dates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.