NFL Changes 2021

[WSU151]

I'm more or less amazed that teams are sticking with Color Rush socks considering there's no requirement for them to do so.  The Giants could wear blue socks (or bring back 80s style socks) with the 80s throwback. 

[shstpt1]

1 hour ago, WSU151 said:

I'm more or less amazed that teams are sticking with Color Rush socks considering there's no requirement for them to do so.  The Giants could wear blue socks (or bring back 80s style socks) with the 80s throwback. 

It’s because they have to look or 

[8BW14]

I’m a broken record on this topic, but the Giants only need one pair of pants and those pants should be gray. Not the current/most recent gray pants, but these bad boys that reflect the helmet stripe and have the perfect “old-school” look:

[Ted Cunningham]

Those are nice uniforms. I know the blue-at-home, red-on-the-road thing is a bit divisive here. I personally like it because it's one of those uniform quirks. That doesn't mean it's good design, but I think it's fun. I also really like the GIANTS uniforms because that's what they wore when I was growing up.

 

Frankly, the Giants have had pretty decent uniforms throughout their (modern/post-1960) history. Two more or less consistent looks (the 1960s/"throwback" uniform and the 1980s/1990s GIANTS uniforms) with some tinkering here and there and a couple of experiments that didn't really stick around but weren't awful, either (e.g. the 1975 double-lined NY logo and the stripe-heavy proto-GIANTS uniforms).

 

It feels like the pendulum is now swinging away from the 1960s ny iteration of the uniforms and back toward the GIANTS side of their collective look. I'm just curious if 1) the color-rush uniforms are popular enough with the age demographics currently spending money on jerseys, tickets, and other football related stuff that the team would want to appeal to them by going back to that look? (Essentially, that would be people who grew up watching the Giants in the GIANTS uniforms and now have disposable income to spend on stuff like jerseys who would be in their 30s, 40s, and 50s.) Or, 2) will they try to split the difference and harmonize the two looks? The Giants have their own history to use as precedent for that, as well: Their uniforms of the late 60s to 1974 show a good balance between the ny era to the GIANTS era:

• No grey pants;
• Blue numbers and striped sleeves/cuffs on the away uniforms;
• Unmarked blue home jerseys; and
• Continued use of the ny logo (simply because the GIANTS logo didn't exist at the time).

This (1962):

 

synthesized with this (1992):

 

 

Could potentially look like this, a combination or harmonization of the two (1974):

 

 

The only thing I'd change is making the facemask white. And I'm frankly indifferent on whether or not they use the ny or GIANTS mark on the helmet. I like both.

 

[MJWalker45]

On 8/7/2021 at 8:30 AM, WSU151 said:

 

They’ve had historic logos on sideline hats for the last three or four years. 

 

Buccaneers 2020 Sideline Hat

Buccaneers 2018 Sideline Hat

 

Cleveland's been going big into including the brownie elf this year too. 

[gosioux76]

8 minutes ago, Ted Cunningham said:

Those are nice uniforms. I know the blue-at-home, red-on-the-road thing is a bit divisive here. I personally like it because it's one of those uniform quirks. That doesn't mean it's good design, but I think it's fun. I also really like the GIANTS uniforms because that's what they wore when I was growing up.

 

Frankly, the Giants have had pretty decent uniforms throughout their (modern/post-1960) history. Two more or less consistent looks (the 1960s/"throwback" uniform and the 1980s/1990s GIANTS uniforms) with some tinkering here and there and a couple of experiments that didn't really stick around but weren't awful, either (e.g. the 1975 double-lined NY logo and the stripe-heavy proto-GIANTS uniforms).

 

It feels like the pendulum is now swinging away from the 1960s ny iteration of the uniforms and back toward the GIANTS side of their collective look. I'm just curious if 1) the color-rush uniforms are popular enough with the age demographics currently spending money on jerseys, tickets, and other football related stuff that the team would want to appeal to them by going back to that look? (Essentially, that would be people who grew up watching the Giants in the GIANTS uniforms and now have disposable income to spend on stuff like jerseys who would be in their 30s, 40s, and 50s.) Or, 2) will they try to split the difference and harmonize the two looks? The Giants have their own history to use as precedent for that, as well: Their uniforms of the late 60s to 1974 show a good balance between the ny era to the GIANTS era:

• No grey pants;
• Blue numbers and striped sleeves/cuffs on the away uniforms;
• Unmarked blue home jerseys; and
• Continued use of the ny logo (simply because the GIANTS logo didn't exist at the time).

This (1962):

 

synthesized with this (1992):

 

 

Could potentially look like this, a combination or harmonization of the two (1974):

 

 

The only thing I'd change is making the facemask white. And I'm frankly indifferent on whether or not they use the ny or GIANTS mark on the helmet. I like both.

 

I think this is a really interesting idea.

 

I agree with you that there appears to be some momentum shifting toward the 80s-90s GIANTS look, which had me wondering whether the Giants aren't going to end up being one of these teams, like the Jets, that vacillates between some variant of the same two looks every 20 to 30 years or so. 

 

Your solution here is a clever way to merge those two ideas, which I appreciate. Someone else mentioned it earlier, but I wouldn't mind seeing the double-lined NY given another run. Maybe use that on your amalgamated jersey set to get a taste of all the Giants modern eras. 

 

[MJWalker45]

19 hours ago, mattr1198 said:

Based on the uniform schedule, looks like save for a 10th anniversary SB XLVI day versus the Rams, the Giants are dumping their gray pants on the road uniforms, going for white-on-white full time this year. Feels like a long time coming imo.

With almost no blue on the pants or jersey, it looks so out of place to have a blue helmet. They're turning into Mississippi, but with sleeve stripes instead of UCLA stripes. 

[DCarp1231]

Love the new look for the Giants

[joekono]

Don't care about the different pant stripes but they should stick with this, old school and timeless:

[Cujo]

Too bad. The grey pants we a vital part of the Giants' identity these past two decades.

 

I feel it's only a matter of time before the Giants revisit the LT era unis full-time.

 

[BBTV]

7 hours ago, Cujo said:

Too bad. The grey pants we a vital part of the Giants' identity these past two decades.

 

I feel it's only a matter of time before the Giants revisit the LT era unis full-time.

 

 

If they do, just imagine the part of LT being played by some douchebag wearing number 4, because his two favorite numbers are 2 and 3, and since they're taken by defensive linemen, he added them up and his math resulted in 4.

[MJWalker45]

13 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

If they do, just imagine the part of LT being played by some douchebag wearing number 4, because his two favorite numbers are 2 and 3, and since they're taken by defensive linemen, he added them up and his math resulted in 4.

Why are you getting so bent out of shape over players picking numbers? 

[BBTV]

6 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

Why are you getting so bent out of shape over players picking numbers? 

 

Because it changes the aesthetic of the game that's been in place for decades, if not more than half a century.  Growing up, all my favorite players were LBs, and >90% of them wore 50s (with a couple weird 90s from the 3-4 guys).  QBs should be in 7, 12, or numbers in that range.  I should be able to look at a guy and know what position he's playing.  Is some of it just "that's the way it's always been so dagnabbit it shouldn't change"?  Sure.  Should I hate players for acting within the confines of the rule?  Probably not - the rule allows them to change.  But do I think this changes the aesthetic of the game just as much as doing away with numbers altogether and wearing giant logos on the front (or making some other huge fundamental change)?  Yep.  I always appreciated that the pro game looked 'professional' (socks, number rules, tucked-in-ish jerseys, etc) vs the sloppy college and high school game, and now there's no difference.  They might as well be playing rec-league football now.  That, and players are proving to be dumber than at any previous point in the game's history, hence my dig at their math skills.

[MJWalker45]

4 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

Because it changes the aesthetic of the game that's been in place for decades, if not more than half a century.  Growing up, all my favorite players were LBs, and >90% of them wore 50s (with a couple weird 90s from the 3-4 guys).  QBs should be in 7, 12, or numbers in that range.  I should be able to look at a guy and know what position he's playing.  Is some of it just "that's the way it's always been so dagnabbit it shouldn't change"?  Sure.  Should I hate players for acting within the confines of the rule?  Probably not - the rule allows them to change.  But do I think this changes the aesthetic of the game just as much as doing away with numbers altogether and wearing giant logos on the front (or making some other huge fundamental change)?  Yep.  I always appreciated that the pro game looked 'professional' (socks, number rules, tucked-in-ish jerseys, etc) vs the sloppy college and high school game, and now there's no difference.  They might as well be playing rec-league football now.  That, and players are proving to be dumber than at any previous point in the game's history, hence my dig at their math skills.

The only thing that's changing is a number. They still have to tackle, block and catch. The worst part about the NFL today is the guys with their undershirts hanging out, not the LB wearing number 11. I don't think picking a number they've worn for most of their time makes them any dumber than the guys that played in the 1920's-1990's and led with their heads when tackling. That was pretty friggin dumb.

[WSU151]

8 hours ago, Cujo said:

Too bad. The grey pants we a vital part of the Giants' identity these past two decades.

 

I feel it's only a matter of time before the Giants revisit the LT era unis full-time.

 

 

I love those uniforms. Totally due to nostalgia. 

[MJWalker45]

39 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

I love those uniforms. Totally due to nostalgia. 

I like them because they're better than what they're wearing now. 

[guest23]

2 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

The only thing that's changing is a number. They still have to tackle, block and catch. The worst part about the NFL today is the guys with their undershirts hanging out, not the LB wearing number 11. I don't think picking a number they've worn for most of their time makes them any dumber than the guys that played in the 1920's-1990's and led with their heads when tackling. That was pretty friggin dumb.

 

I'm going to echo what bbtv said. Purely from an aesthetic standpoint, the extra formality with the number system, socks etc gave an air of professionalism to the sport that was distinctive at 1st glance. That distinct aesthetic line between pro and amateur no longer exists.

[gosioux76]

The interesting thing about the Giants is that they've never really adopted uniform changes that were a drastic departure from prior eras. They didn't really go BFBS or, like the Niners, adopt dramatically different shades of their primary colors.  All they've done is vacillate between variations on two primary logos, played around with striping and tossed in gray as an occasional tertiary color.

 

What you're left with is a team that could easily mix and match those various elements, blending pieces from prior eras to create something new within the context of its design history. I'm not sure there are many teams that can do that. (And I'm not including the Bears/Packers/Raiders, et. al, which are essentially unchanged from earlier eras, minus small cosmetic tweaks.) 

 

In contrast, I think of the Jets. The white-helmeted Namath-era uniforms of the 60s and  2000s are so distinct form the kelly green '80s and current sets that you could mistake them for representing an entirely different franchise. 

[GhostOfNormMacdonald]

2 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

I love those uniforms. Totally due to nostalgia. 

They never wore them during my lifetime so I have no nostalgia for them. They just look better than the Eli era stuff

[the_grateful_ted]

3 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

If they do, just imagine the part of LT being played by some douchebag wearing number 4, because his two favorite numbers are 2 and 3, and since they're taken by defensive linemen, he added them up and his math resulted in 4.

It’s getting old man, not even related to the topic