NFL Changes 2021

[Gothamite]

On 5/16/2021 at 4:57 PM, GoHawks said:

I feel like having a plane on the helmet of a New York team could be bad for obvious reasons even if it would look nice.

 

No. it wouldn't.

 

It really, really wouldn't.

 

I don't know if it would look good, but it sure as hell wouldn't be "problematic".

[IceCap]

On the Jets...

 

They're a New York team. I feel like they ought to play into that above anything else. They represent arguably the most famous city in the world, that should be the brand. It's also why the Giants' "ny" logo is preferable to the GIANTS logo, in my opinion.

 

So the old logo, while messy, did properly convey that they were a New York team. It's also why I wanted the oval/NY alternate they had floating around to become the new primary. It's a perfect update to the classic look, emphasizes the locale, and had a bold and italicized font to call back to the "Jets" name.

So I don't think the 1963 logo, or the 1978-1997 logo, or any other logo with an actual jet is needed, or even desirable.

 

So what about their current identity? It's bad. Sorry.

The only thing it does right is return to a kelly green. Though I feel it's worth mentioning that the last set's forest green looked nice in its own right before Nike got the contract and butchered it with mismatched pea green fabrics.

 

The logo isn't bad, really, but it's just...not working. I get they wanted to clean up the classic logo, so they removed the ghost NY from behind the JETS script and spelt out NEW YORK above it instead, but it's just underwhelming. Again, the oval NY logo would have cleaned up the concept of the classic logo in a much better way, in my opinion. 

 

The black...it's just not needed. Sorry. It's not. Kelly green and white is a pretty striking colour scheme. Between the black and the random shards that pass for design elements they really do call to mind the Saskatchewan Roughriders.

 

I know some people here will scoff at this post and write it off as "oh you just like the old look because it's what they wore in 60s yadda yadda nostalgia blarg."

Look. I wasn't alive in the 1960s. I have no nostalgia for Super Bowl III or Joe Namath but...Super Bowl III is probably one of the most famous football games ever played. If not the most famous. From Namath's guarantee to it putting the AFL on the NFL's level, to the merger being saved, to just the shock value of the upset...it's one of those legendary games. 

 

So when you're a team that can boast that you won a game like that? Yeah, you should probably own that look.

So what do I want the Jets to look like? Namath-era design, kelly green and all, on a modern template. With the logo changed out for the oval NY as a nice update of the classic mark.

 

No black. No "we put random pointy bits on because 'jets.'" Just look like the New York Jets. It's really not difficult.

[DCarp1231]

I do think the Jets could’ve done better with the redesign, but I still think it’s a slight improvement over the previous iteration. I honestly think the black jersey is my favorite of the three even though it’s not needed, like @IceCap said.

 

Personally? I would have preferred a modernized late 70s-late 80s look

 

I guess the current set could be considered a modernization, but even then that’s giving it too much credit.

 

I’ve always felt this set just looked odd. There’s nothing particularly wrong with it, but it’s never sat right with me.

[IceCap]

15 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

I’ve always felt this set just looked odd. There’s nothing particularly wrong with it, but it’s never sat right with me.

Well yeah, Nike butchered the design with mismatching fabric and execution to the shoulder loops/sleeve caps that left much to be desired.

 

This though? This is nice...

 

 

[DCarp1231]

17 minutes ago, IceCap said:

Well yeah, Nike butchered the design with mismatching fabric and execution to the shoulder loops/sleeve caps that left much to be desired.

 

This though? This is nice...

 

 

Even pre-Nike is a bit wonky to me. I’ve never been able to differentiate what is it isn’t a sleeve/shoulder stripe on those. Or even if there is a sleeve/shoulder stripe. Is it supposed to be a reverse UCLA type thing? I legitimately have no clue.

[AndrewMLind]

27 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

Even pre-Nike is a bit wonky to me. I’ve never been able to differentiate what is it isn’t a sleeve/shoulder stripe on those. Or even if there is a sleeve/shoulder stripe. Is it supposed to be a reverse UCLA type thing? I legitimately have no clue.

 

They were actually oversized Northwestern stripes in the beginning, which obviously got lost as the jerseys got smaller/tighter. They were effectively UCLA stripes with a contrasting sleeve cap added at the end.

[andrewharrington]

23 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

Even pre-Nike is a bit wonky to me. I’ve never been able to differentiate what is it isn’t a sleeve/shoulder stripe on those. Or even if there is a sleeve/shoulder stripe. Is it supposed to be a reverse UCLA type thing? I legitimately have no clue.

Gotta go back to the original.

 

 

It was actually an oversized NW stripe with the TV number in the center. The bottom part of the design eventually got chopped away, and now it’s more like contrast sleeves with a UCLA stripe at the edge.

[gosioux76]

1 minute ago, andrewharrington said:

Gotta go back to the original.

 

It was actually an oversized NW stripe with the TV number in the center. The bottom part of the design eventually got chopped away, and now it’s more like contrast sleeves with a UCLA stripe at the edge.

 

That's a lot of disparate elements that would seem too complicated to replicate on the modern cut uniforms without significant modifications. Not suggesting it isn't possible, of course. I don't dislike the idea of using the 60s set as a baseline but reimagined. In other words, what didn't happen when Nike took the reins. 

[spartacat_12]

1 hour ago, IceCap said:

On the Jets...

 

They're a New York team. I feel like they ought to play into that above anything else. They represent arguably the most famous city in the world, that should be the brand. It's also why the Giants' "ny" logo is preferable to the GIANTS logo, in my opinion.

 

So the old logo, while messy, did properly convey that they were a New York team. It's also why I wanted the oval/NY alternate they had floating around to become the new primary. It's a perfect update to the classic look, emphasizes the locale, and had a bold and italicized font to call back to the "Jets" name.

So I don't think the 1963 logo, or the 1978-1997 logo, or any other logo with an actual jet is needed, or even desirable.

 

The last thing that the sports world needs is another pro team wearing some sort of NY monogram as a logo. We've already got the Yankees, Giants, Mets, Islanders, and NYCFC. 

[IceCap]

7 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

The last thing that the sports world needs is another pro team wearing some sort of NY monogram as a logo. We've already got the Yankees, Giants, Mets, Islanders, and NYCFC. 

There's a reason so many do it. It works. 

[oldschoolvikings]

The black trim is a huge problem. It's so obviously shoe horned in just to have an excuse to drag out that black alternate. Think about it... if the NFL had a two-jersey-only policy (in other words, if I was the benevolent dictator of the universe) is there any way they would've added the black trim to the numbers, and tacked on the black facemask? Maybe, I guess, but it seems unlikely.  It's exactly like the dark gray the Lions use... on them it shows up no where on the primary uniforms except for the number outline. So in both cases, they made a specific decision to clutter up the primary uniforms for no other possible reason except as an excuse to sell alternate jerseys. It's a shame when those considerations actually work to hurt the overall design.

[Lights Out]

The Jets' current uniforms are okay. It's their logo that still sucks.

[BBTV]

It's also an issue that very few - if any - players actually wear the Jets new uniform as intended, so it's hard to fairly judge.  I think think they were the first team that I noticed had everyone wearing those silly T shirts

[Dexter Morgan]

Jets could simplify the shoulders on the classic uniform

 

 

 

[Dexter Morgan]

These while not perfect.... way better than Nike era.

 

 

[dont care]

24 minutes ago, Dexter Morgan said:

Jets could simplify the shoulders on the classic uniform

 

 

 

Imagine trying to fit a number and the swoosh there, that’s why it wouldn’t work.

[BBTV]

Don't need a number.  Just do what I said earlier: make a white Texans jersey, make the sleeve cap green, make the shoulder horn thing white with green piping around it.  Gets you a classic Jets jersey on the modern template.

 

EDIT: for the home, just make a green Texans jersey with white sleeve, and green horn with white trim.

[IceCap]

11 hours ago, DNAsports said:

Even pre-Nike is a bit wonky to me. I’ve never been able to differentiate what is it isn’t a sleeve/shoulder stripe on those. Or even if there is a sleeve/shoulder stripe. Is it supposed to be a reverse UCLA type thing? I legitimately have no clue.

I think you're overthinking it. It's a jersey with contrasting sleeves, and a stripe. It's not trying to "be" anything but what it is. 

[Gothamite]

11 hours ago, Dexter Morgan said:

These while not perfect.... way better than Nike era.

 

 

honesty, if they wanted to modernize this jersey they could have simply removed the white stripe from the shoulders.  Add their NY logo to the helmet, and you have a great Jets uniform. 

[dont care]

24 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

honesty, if they wanted to modernize this jersey they could have simply removed the white stripe from the shoulders.  Add their NY logo to the helmet, and you have a great Jets uniform. 

So just white sleeve caps, no thanks