Jump to content

NFL Changes 2021


simtek34

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Gothamite said:

And the original inspiration. 
 

spacer.png

 

we used to hold this photo up as a joke.  Guess I’ve seen everything now. 

 

I was going to complain about monochrome and ponder when we'll see the end of it as a fad.

BUT, in this case it is actually accurate so...

  • Like 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, guest23 said:

 

It's a fine fauxback/color rush but it is neither fresh nor clean imho.

 

I challenge all sports teams to remove "fresh and clean" from their uniform descriptions for the rest of the decade.

  • Like 23

1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said:

and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, colinturner95 said:

Better than the navy stuff. Still nothing special IMO

 

9 hours ago, mjd77 said:

 

They should have lightened the green up a bit for a better reflection of the '50s set...but overall, I like this way better than any of the navy crap they've had.

I could spray diarrhea out my butt onto a canvas, and they could photocopy that canvas into better uniforms than the Packers’ navy/tan abominations. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

I challenge all sports teams to remove "fresh and clean" from their uniform descriptions for the rest of the decade.

Then they will just use🔥 and 🧊 emojis with no words. Is that what you want?

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine the ‘53 packers were sans face mask or close to it, so why not just keep the green ones on? Heck, I think they left green ones for one of the navy years. If they were gray masked, then my bad.

  • Like 1
KISSwall09.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, VDizzle12 said:

Packers vs Browns throwbacks on Christmas seems like a no brainer. All white vs all green? Sign me up.

 

No such luck...Oct 24th against Washington is the 1 game we will see the throwbacks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hormone said:

I imagine the ‘53 packers were sans face mask or close to it, so why not just keep the green ones on? Heck, I think they left green ones for one of the navy years. If they were gray masked, then my bad.


this isn’t a 1953 uniform.  It’s a 1950 uniform.  Which was originally worn with leather helmets, no facemasks.  
 

But when the Packers did adopt facemasks, they wore gray for the first quarter-century.  So any throwbacks from before 1980 really should use gray. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MCM0313 said:

 

I could spray diarrhea out my butt onto a canvas, and they could photocopy that canvas into better uniforms than the Packers’ navy/tan abominations. 

 

Sounds like something you should whip up for the concepts forum.

  • Like 10

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After seeing the surprisingly (to me) overwhelmingly positive response to these from casual fans... or at least fans who aren't obsessive uni nerds... I may have to soften my stance on these.  They aren't offensive to the eye (as much as some of us distaste monochrome) and are on brand for the Packers.  So maybe I shouldn't be so critical.

 

But damn... has the bar really been set this low? Part of me feels like the biggest reason these have been so well received is because we've been subjected to so many side panels and weird striping over the years that simply being inoffensive and looking like a football uniform is considered a home run.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Packers yet again refuse to make historically accurate numbers, and this is the easiest historic number set to get right since its still being cut and sewn on jerseys in San Francisco and throwbacks in Indianapolis.   Also, the green could definitely be brighter; it looks like they're using their current forest green rather than kelly green.  However, I do love that the logos are based on the coaches' gear, but I doubt the font that is being used is historically accurate, even though there wasn't a lot of source pixels to work with; the hat and shirt logos were most likely blockier.

 

Brighter green, blockier logos and correct number font:

LyyZJYp.png

  • Like 4

hm7YvwN.png

OgzK3Ub.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, packerfan21396 said:

I do love that the logos are based on the coaches' gear, but I doubt the font that is being used is historically accurate, even though there wasn't a lot of source pixels to work with; the hat and shirt logos were most likely blockier.


that is my presumption as well (at least for the GB logo), but I’m not confident in saying so because of the lack of good source material. 
 

The Packers have a long history of being very poor chroniclers of their own uniform history. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, NicDB said:

After seeing the surprisingly (to me) overwhelmingly positive response to these from casual fans... or at least fans who aren't obsessive uni nerds... I may have to soften my stance on these.  They aren't offensive to the eye (as much as some of us distaste monochrome) and are on brand for the Packers.  So maybe I shouldn't be so critical.

 

honestly, monochrome is the only real issue with these.  The jersey is absolutely fine on its own. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.