NFL Changes 2021

[spartacat_12]

On 7/10/2021 at 4:57 PM, oldschoolvikings said:

If I was in charge of what a particular team was wearing, my only concern would be making that team look as good as possible.  What another team was wearing wouldn't enter into it.

 

That logic is fine if you are designing uniforms in a vacuum, but you're not. Yes you want the team to look good, but a major part of branding is standing out and offering something unique compared to your competitors. Your way of thinking is what has lead to matchups like these:

 

 

 

 

[_DietDrPepper_]

Just now, spartacat_12 said:

 

That logic is fine if you are designing uniforms in a vacuum, but you're not. Yes you want the team to look good, but a major part of branding is standing out and offering something unique compared to your competitors. Your way of thinking is what has lead to matchups like these:

 

 

 

 

What’s wrong with these matchups? Outside of the Cardinals, Falcons, Twolves, and Canes wearing some of the worst uniforms they’ve ever made. 

 

There’s only so many colors, the Cowboys are completely fine in royal blue.

[spartacat_12]

10 minutes ago, _DietDrPepper_ said:

What’s wrong with these matchups?

 

They look like intra-squad scrimmages. I thought that point was obvious.

[DCarp1231]

19 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

They look like intra-squad scrimmages. I thought that point was obvious.

I think the Minnesota-Dallas one is passable and the Arizona-Atlanta one would be a lot worse if the Cardinals were in black and the Falcons were in their whites. The other two definitely look like intra-squad

[Rockstar Matt]

On 7/11/2021 at 9:22 AM, DNAsports said:

The Cowboys and Giants are two of the worst teams in terms of uniform cohesiveness. One team can’t even settle on a blue/silver scheme and has mismatching uniforms while the other team also has mismatching uniforms and refuses to add red to their home jersey and blue to their away jersey.

 

The Cowboys need to standardized their blue and silver (ideally, to the blue and silver graphic oldschool posted above) so that their iconic white uniform actually looks cohesive.

 

But the Giants do not belong in the same distinction as the Cowboys. Their uniform set is phenomenal. I know they're a rival, but I've long loved their blue at home and red on the road set. It's fantastic. Not every team needs to have matching home and away sets with just the colors reversed. The Giants are a perfect example of how that can work beautifully

[_DietDrPepper_]

1 hour ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

They look like intra-squad scrimmages. I thought that point was obvious.

I mean, the obvious logos and wordmark differences show otherwise. Maybe with the Lightning and Maple Leafs I could see it, but again the giant chest logos are pretty dead give aways.

[DCarp1231]

58 minutes ago, Rockstar Matt said:

 

The Cowboys need to standardized their blue and silver (ideally, to the blue and silver graphic oldschool posted above) so that their iconic white uniform actually looks cohesive.

 

But the Giants do not belong in the same distinction as the Cowboys. Their uniform set is phenomenal. I know they're a rival, but I've long loved their blue at home and red on the road set. It's fantastic. Not every team needs to have matching home and away sets with just the colors reversed. The Giants are a perfect example of how that can work beautifully

The more I think about the Giants, I believe what’s throwing me off is the jersey striping. I’d much rather they have matching sleeve stripes or none at all. The lack of blue and red in the jerseys really is fine considering both colors are used appropriately throughout the rest of the design

[Gothamite]

I agree, but then I've come to the conclusion that no teams should have sleeve striping, since no teams actually have sleeves anymore.

 

Strip it off the road, and you've got a great set of jerseys.

[spartacat_12]

22 minutes ago, _DietDrPepper_ said:

I mean, the obvious logos and wordmark differences show otherwise. Maybe with the Lightning and Maple Leafs I could see it, but again the giant chest logos are pretty dead give aways.

 

Well when you're in the stands or put the game on TV mid-broadcast you usually don't get a close look at the logos right away. The colours & striping are typically the first indication you get of who's playing. Obviously none of those looks are identical, but they're close enough that it is confusing to a casual observer.

[DCarp1231]

Even though we knew this a while ago, Washington has formally announced that its new name with not include Native American imagery

[Brian E]

32 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

Even though we knew this a while ago, Washington has formally announced that its new name with not include Native American imagery

 

haha imagine if they spent two years coming up with a name and were like, "okay, we thought about it. introducing...the washington redmen. HTTR!!!"

[Brian E]

2 hours ago, Rockstar Matt said:

 

The Cowboys need to standardized their blue and silver (ideally, to the blue and silver graphic oldschool posted above) so that their iconic white uniform actually looks cohesive.

 

But the Giants do not belong in the same distinction as the Cowboys. Their uniform set is phenomenal. I know they're a rival, but I've long loved their blue at home and red on the road set. It's fantastic. Not every team needs to have matching home and away sets with just the colors reversed. The Giants are a perfect example of how that can work beautifully

 

FWIW, i'm totally torn on the giants. i love the home white pants, and thought that was a huge upgrade for their set. i know why the fan base loves the current roads (won 42 and 46 in them), and in a vacuum, they're fine.  big upgrade over the set they replaced. it's my personal taste, but i far prefer their color rush set to the current road.

 

all that said, i think some royal blue could be worked into the sleeve/pants striping to get the best of both worlds. 

[Rockstar Matt]

1 hour ago, Brian E said:

 

FWIW, i'm totally torn on the giants. i love the home white pants, and thought that was a huge upgrade for their set. i know why the fan base loves the current roads (won 42 and 46 in them), and in a vacuum, they're fine.  big upgrade over the set they replaced. it's my personal taste, but i far prefer their color rush set to the current road.

 

all that said, i think some royal blue could be worked into the sleeve/pants striping to get the best of both worlds. 

 

For me, I felt like the CR set for the Giants, and the prior LT/Simms set the color rush is replicating, was the definition of a generic football uniform. Literally a basic red, white and blue uniform with a simple GIANTS wordmark across the helmet.

 

I know that's ironic considering their current set is consisting of just a plain blue jersey with white numbering, and a white jersey with red numbering, but with that being paired with the fantastic helmet, logo and the pant combos makes for, IMHO, a quintessential football uniform. It also helps that the current set is essentially a uniform the Giants wore for years prior to the 70's, giving it that old-timey, yesteryear look shared with the other old NFL franchises. 

 

And again, I absolutely love the blue dominant at home, with the contrasting red dominant on the road look. 

[O.C.D]

3 hours ago, _DietDrPepper_ said:

I mean, the obvious logos and wordmark differences show otherwise. Maybe with the Lightning and Maple Leafs I could see it, but again the giant chest logos are pretty dead give aways.

Most people would think all those teams uniforms look very similar. What is obvious to the trained eye can easily be missed by average people. Isn't this the reason soccer teams have a clash set? If two teams have similar colors one of the teams can wear something totally different?

[Bill0813]

3 hours ago, DNAsports said:

Even though we knew this a while ago, Washington has formally announced that its new name with not include Native American imagery

Golden State Warriors have never used any native iconography.   For Washington to assume warriors must equate only to a reference to Native Americans is more insulting.  Don't believe me?  Ask these guys

[oldschoolvikings]

6 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

That logic is fine if you are designing uniforms in a vacuum, but you're not. Yes you want the team to look good, but a major part of branding is standing out and offering something unique compared to your competitors. Your way of thinking is what has lead to matchups like these:

 

 

 

 

 

I guess as an outside observer I can see why you might wish that there was more contrast in these match-ups, but would you really expect either team to change based on what the other team is wearing?  We have this discussion all the time about Wisconsin and Nebraska football.  Both teams wear nearly identical uniforms.  I'm pretty sure if you asked either team if they'd like to do something about it, Nebraska would say Wisconsin should change, and Wisconsin would say Nebraska should change. Which is exactly what both should say.

 

(And as a side note, back when the Giants wore their gray pants both home and road, they had possibly the best home and road set in the NFL. They've screwed that up with the useless white home pants, but it's still preferable to the boring color rush.)

[damnyoutuesday]

7 minutes ago, Bill0813 said:

Golden State Warriors have never used any native iconography

Of all the takes, this is one of them

 

https://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/5970/San_Francisco_Warriors/1963/Alternate_Logo

 

https://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/5972/San_Francisco_Warriors/1963/Primary_Logo

[BJ Sands]

9 minutes ago, Bill0813 said:

Golden State Warriors have never used any native iconography.   For Washington to assume warriors must equate only to a reference to Native Americans is more insulting.  Don't believe me?  Ask these guys

They have. 

 

https://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/5972/San_Francisco_Warriors/1963/Primary_Logo

[DCarp1231]

26 minutes ago, Bill0813 said:

Golden State Warriors have never used any native iconography.   For Washington to assume warriors must equate only to a reference to Native Americans is more insulting.  Don't believe me?  Ask these guys

[Bill0813]

16 minutes ago, MNtwins3 said:

Of all the takes, this is one of them

 

https://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/5970/San_Francisco_Warriors/1963/Alternate_Logo

 

https://www.sportslogos.net/logos/view/5972/San_Francisco_Warriors/1963/Primary_Logo

Point taken, silly of me not to recall a logo from 1962 & 1968.  There was this one more recent than those anyway.     It shows that being a warrior does not have to be Native inspired.