NFL Changes 2021

[SFGiants58]

WFT using Warriors would be terrible, because it just seems like a back door way to go back to the “old ways.” Unlike GSW, they don’t get the benefit of the doubt.

 

Edited July 12, 2021 by SFGiants58

[AFirestormToPurify]

On 7/8/2021 at 4:05 PM, spartacat_12 said:

 

I prefer the reactions on here to the inevitable "so clean", or  responses that you see from the general public whenever a new uniform is unveiled.

 

I don't. They're the same knee jerk reactions without any explanations as to why they're "fire" or "garbage", except on here the people are just being negative and whiny

Case in point:

 

On 7/8/2021 at 5:59 PM, dont care said:

The NBA, MLB, and color rush program determined this was a lie.

Well see. But until the Raiders have an unnecessary black helmets and Packers have a similarly pointless green one, I'll maintain that you're all just overreacting

[dont care]

23 minutes ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

I don't. They're the same knee jerk reactions without any explanations as to why they're "fire" or "garbage", except on here the people are just being negative and whiny

Case in point:

 

Well see. But until the Raiders have an unnecessary black helmets and Packers have a similarly pointless green one, I'll maintain that you're all just overreacting

It’s not an overreaction when there is a series of examples that prove teams have and will do just that to make a buck, or simply just believe Nike/adidas’ b.s.

[Bill0813]

26 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

WFT using Warriors would be terrible, because it just seems like a back door way to go back to the “old ways.” Unlike GSW, they don’t get the benefit of the doubt.

 

As Golden State proved,  there are ways to use it that wouldn't be a "back door."    They are already using a "W" logo. which could mean either "Washington" or "Warriors."    If one were to look for "back doors, " the burgundy color may also be problematic since it goes back to the color of the last mascot.    Warriors is far better than Red Wolves which is another reach just to use the "R."   

[GoHawks]

I'm not against the Raiders having a black helmet with an all black uni. I think it would work well as an alternate especially since they just moved to Vegas

[MCM0313]

2 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

WFT using Warriors would be terrible, because it just seems like a back door way to go back to the “old ways.” Unlike GSW, they don’t get the benefit of the doubt.

 

Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons. That is the only name they should ever have. EVAR!!!!!!1!!!!

 

In all seriousness, preferably just something that’s not two words. San Fran has the only two-word nickname and it can easily be abbreviated numerically. Just something that lets them keep their solid color scheme and actually have logos on their helmets. 

[BBTV]

7 hours ago, Gothamite said:

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.

 

The solution for teams that insist on stripes is to run them vertically from the collar to sleeve cuff.  Since TV numbers are no longer required, that space could be used for striping, similar to how Texas A&M did a few years ago:

 

[Indigo]

3 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

WFT using Warriors would be terrible, because it just seems like a back door way to go back to the “old ways.” Unlike GSW, they don’t get the benefit of the doubt.

 

Golden State gets the benefit of doubt because by the 1970’s they dropped the Native American imagery and started marketing their iconic landmarks. They became the Golden State Warriors, not the Golden State Warriors.
Washington just didn’t care enough to attempt to change it, and in a league where teams change iconic looks for the sake of change, it’s disappointing that the team that needed to change the most didn’t. If they went by Warriors in 1985 of something like that, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

[MJD7]

10 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. 

I agree with this completely.  At the most basic, fundamental level, the purpose of a sports uniform is to distinguish one team from the other. That's why complimentary colors often make for great matchups, in my opinion (the Bills-Jets colorblind fiasco notwithstanding).

 

That's also why I don't completely hate certain monochrome looks like others might, because although an all-white against all-color matchup might not be the most aesthetically pleasing matchup, it would undeniably be the easiest matchup to distinguish the two teams. 

 

4 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

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.

Wisconsin and Nebraska is definitely a unique and difficult situation, but I would say that while it's pretty much universally agreed that neither team should distinguish themselves by changing color, I think they could embrace separate striping patterns in order to distinguish their brands. For example, if I were Nebraska I would embrace a single-stripe look, while if I was in control of Wisconsin I would keep utilizing the two-stripe design.

[AFirestormToPurify]

5 hours ago, GoHawks said:

I'm not against the Raiders having a black helmet with an all black uni. I think it would work well as an alternate especially since they just moved to Vegas

Yeah it would objectively look great. But some people on here will say it's awful garbage just cause it's not silver and that the Raiders didn't have a black helmet in the 1980s so it's automatically wrong. At this point it's just silly lol. But I get it, when the Habs announced they would be wearing blue jerseys I had the same knee jerk reaction, so I'm not gonna be a hypocrite and pretend I'm better than every else for being more open minded

[_DietDrPepper_]

13 minutes ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

Yeah it would objectively look great. But some people on here will say it's awful garbage just cause it's not silver and that the Raiders didn't have a black helmet in the 1980s so it's automatically wrong. At this point it's just silly lol. But I get it, when the Habs announced they would be wearing blue jerseys I had the same knee jerk reaction, so I'm not gonna be a hypocrite and pretend I'm better than every else for being more open minded

Objectively an all black Raiders uniform doesn’t sound all that great. It doesn’t add a single thing to the brand.

 

And no, I mean I could care less what a team wore in the 80’s, their brand integrity still matters. Having two helmets can possibly dilute a brand, especially in a sport with as few a games, and with such a cultural focus on a helmet like football.

Not to mention this gets Nike one foot in the door for total NBA-ification.

 

Its not about solely about what the team wore in the past, yes a historic iconic team like the Raiders or Packers should definitely have 1 helmet only because of their history, but for most NFL teams, it’s about keeping the identity of the team together, people were just arguing about teams looking similar to each other, wouldn’t that increase if teams started having different options for the most important aspect of their uniform? 

[Ben in LA]

12 hours ago, Bill0813 said:

Golden State Warriors have never used any native iconography.

Technically you’re correct. But the franchise in the past…

 

[gosioux76]

15 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

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.)

 

I get what you're saying, but there's a big distinction between two major universities that chose their colors decades ago and professional sports franchises that seem to make consequential branding changes every few years, and appear to do so with less and less consideration for uniqueness. 

 

The T-Wolves, for example, could easily have re-embraced royal blue and green with their most recent redesign, which would have made them unique in the league, but instead opted for a pair of darker shades of blue that, as the picture shows, isn't that dissimilar from what the Mavericks wear. It looks to me that they cared less about creating a brand that stood out within the league and more about creating product they thought had a better chance at selling, likely using focus group and market research data. 

 

And that's fine. These teams are a business, of which retail sales are a big part. So I get it. But as others have pointed out, they just end up looking a bit more like the Mavericks than I'd like.

 

As an aside, I'm still flummoxed by the T-Wolves' decision to incorporate a neon green accent in such a subtle way that it's barely noticeable. The garish green alts aside, I don't see how adding a slight touch of green inside the fold of the shorts adds anything other than frustration that the rest of it looks so ridiculously bland. 

[DCarp1231]

Warriors and anything “Red-“ is unequivocally a cop out and back door into the team not really dropping the old name.

[Gothamite]

15 hours 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. 

It would be more insulting as if they used “warriors” pretending that it never had any native connotations in our country. 
 

taking that name off the table is the right call. 

[SFGiants58]

4 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

It would be more insulting as if they used “warriors” pretending that it never had any native connotations in our country. 
 

taking that name off the table is the right call. 

So, no room for the Washington Gold or Washington Golden Eagles?

[ptay]

So it's gonna be Washington Football Club. We can read the writing on the wall. 

[LMU]

Much better guys. Now throw everything bone in a pit and never speak of it again.

 

 

 

[VDizzle12]

Just now, LMU said:

Much better guys. Now throw everything bone in a pit and never speak of it again.

 

 

 

 

Get rid of the "bone" and all gradients.

 

Surprised they got Dickerson. He seemed pretty vocal about hating the new logos and uniforms.

 

Maybe they already realized their mistakes and are attempting to correct them. I'm assuming this will eventually be elevated to a primary uniform.

[SFGiants58]

That’s even better than the leak! It’ll be good to see it eventually promoted to road jersey (if it’s possible), while bone gets condemned as a mistake.