oldschoolvikings 18,477 Posted January 26 10 minutes ago, Sport said: I got into an argument with my roommate in 2013 when he said the Bengals have never changed their uniforms. After literally pulling up pictures on my phone I determined that what he meant was that they had never changed their color scheme like the Buccaneers or the Seahawks and had always worn orange helmets, black jerseys, and white pants. Most people really do not care about things like number font, stripe widths/placement, and any small details so long as the essence of the look is there. They also haven't spent a lot of time thinking about these things so they don't have the vocabulary to describe what they mean. Meanwhile I'm over here itchy when a team changes the collar color from black to white. My guess is that the average Bengals fan would tell you the team has only had two uniforms... The one with the letters on the helmets, and the one with the tiger stripes on the helmets. 8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BBTV 20,951 Posted January 26 1 hour ago, Rixaroo said: Sports Logos Dot Net Forums: Enter Bengals thread for new uni news. Stay for the Texans/Saints arguments. Here's more for you. Enjoy your stay! I dislike almost everything about the Saints from the neck down, but one thing that's particularly maddening is their NOB font and how mismatched it is. It doesn't go with anything else in their set, and looks like they sent their jerseys to the local sporting goods store and they lettered them with whatever they had laying around. 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
McCall 1,446 Posted January 26 13 minutes ago, Sport said: I got into an argument with my roommate in 2013 when he said the Bengals have never changed their uniforms. After literally pulling up pictures on my phone I determined that what he meant was that they had never changed their color scheme like the Buccaneers or the Seahawks and had always worn orange helmets, black jerseys, and white pants. Most people really do not care about things like number font, stripe widths/placement, and any small details so long as the essence of the look is there. They also haven't spent a lot of time thinking about these things so they don't have the vocabulary to describe what they mean. Meanwhile I'm over here itchy when a team changes the collar color from black to white. Well, duh. That can change the whole complexity of the entire team identity. I mean, look what happened when teams went to the "toilet lid" look of the flywire template when the league switched to Nike. And that was only about 1/3 to half of the collar changing colors. Do people not get the importance of that? It's like they're living in the matrix, unaware of what is being hidden from them. People are so unenlightened. And that will be the downfall of humanity. 8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gosioux76 2,595 Posted January 26 19 minutes ago, MCM0313 said: The helmet has a satin finish, right? Like the Vikings and IIRC the new Rams and Falcons? That’s exactly what satin finish is - brighter than matte and duller than gloss. I'm pretty sure the Vikings is a matte finish. (I think the new Falcons helmet is, too.) It's a brighter purple (the left is the updated color), but it has a duller finish. The Titans one may be satin, but there's something shabby about it. A matte finish may actually improve it. 0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VikWings 1,652 Posted January 26 6 hours ago, OnWis97 said: Your Vikings example is a good one. Purple/yellow? Check. Purple horned helmet? Check. My favorite "normal fan" Vikings memory is when they changed from the Reebok look to the current look, seeing a fan somewhere on social media say "they're going to their throwbacks." And I'm just shaking my head saying "yeah, they totally had that weird serif pattern when they were blowing Super Bowls in the 1970s." It's times like this that I'm reminded of how weird I am. But I only would believe "minor change" if it comes from one of us weirdos. I remember when news first leaked of the Vikings moving on from the Reebok look, the source called the uniforms that were coming "retro and awesome." 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dont care 6,889 Posted January 26 5 hours ago, MCM0313 said: The helmet has a satin finish, right? Like the Vikings and IIRC the new Rams and Falcons? That’s exactly what satin finish is - brighter than matte and duller than gloss. It’s also the same as the Seahawks who use navy as well 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Discrim 1,310 Posted January 26 On 1/23/2021 at 1:10 PM, oldschoolvikings said: Yeah, the Eagles are right up there, too, for me. Although, like the Cowboys, it's mostly just a color issue. Same here, I generally like how the Eagles look...if I ignore that they didn't need to add charcoal when they moved into the Linc. Silver would've done the job just fine. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cujo 5,400 Posted January 27 14 hours ago, Rixaroo said: Sports Logos Dot Net Forums: Enter Bengals thread for new uni news. Stay for the Texans/Saints arguments. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jungle Jim 888 Posted January 27 17 hours ago, MJWalker45 said: Not really. Some helmets look empty without the stripes and the Saints are one of those teams. When Cleveland would go with no stripes in preseason games it was a bit jarring as well, especially with their very busy uniforms. Oh, it would be different, for sure, but I think that's because it's just not what we're used to with that helmet. We don't think anything about the Cardinals, Bears, Texans, etc. not having stripes. But I can agree that tradition alone is reason enough to not change it. 16 hours ago, WSU151 said: The stripes on the Saints helmets are the best part of their uniforms. The stripeless features on the jersey and pants need to change. 15 hours ago, OnWis97 said: That basic three-stripe helmet pattern is a favorite of mine. And it is not very common anymore. The Packers and Cowboys will probably always have it but I miss the Lions using it and I wish it was a bit more common. So if the Saints need to unify, then they should make the pants match the helmet. No argument here. Just make it match. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ramsjetsthunder 1,354 Posted January 27 It makes me mad how little some people know and/or care about uniforms. They also usually love whatever is put in front of them. 8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BBTV 20,951 Posted January 27 42 minutes ago, ramsjetsthunder said: It makes me mad how little some people know and/or care about uniforms. They also usually love whatever is put in front of them. why does that make you mad? I'm jealous of them - I wish I didn't care about this stuff. Life is less stressful when you like things than when you hate things. 14 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OnWis97 4,710 Posted January 27 19 minutes ago, BBTV said: why does that make you mad? I'm jealous of them - I wish I didn't care about this stuff. Life is less stressful when you like things than when you hate things. It doesn’t upset me. But it is something I just can’t relate to. I legitimately don’t understand someone that would say that the Browns have never changed their uniforms. I don’t really expect people to pick up on the small adjustments to the Vikings or AZ Cardinals logos (I probably would not be aware of those changes if not for the boards) but I am legitimately baffled at how much has to change for most fans to recognize a difference. Actually, maybe I can relate. Most of you have strong feelings on the color of football socks and I almost never notice. I don’t care whether the socks are the same color as the pants or not. So I guess that’s what most fans are like when it comes to facemask color, number font, new tertiary colors, etc. 6 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MCM0313 2,818 Posted January 27 43 minutes ago, OnWis97 said: It doesn’t upset me. But it is something I just can’t relate to. I legitimately don’t understand someone that would say that the Browns have never changed their uniforms. I don’t really expect people to pick up on the small adjustments to the Vikings or AZ Cardinals logos (I probably would not be aware of those changes if not for the boards) but I am legitimately baffled at how much has to change for most fans to recognize a difference. Actually, maybe I can relate. Most of you have strong feelings on the color of football socks and I almost never notice. I don’t care whether the socks are the same color as the pants or not. So I guess that’s what most fans are like when it comes to facemask color, number font, new tertiary colors, etc. Socks are like Jeff Lebowski’s rug: they really tie the whole thing together. 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldschoolvikings 18,477 Posted January 27 43 minutes ago, OnWis97 said: Most of you have strong feelings on the color of football socks and I almost never notice. I don’t care whether the socks are the same color as the pants or not. You're a monster. 26 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
throwmesomepics 233 Posted January 28 Idk if the Texans discussion is still going on but I wanted to add that this was the Texans best combo: It looks especially good with the red socks. I believe they’ve only worn it once in franchise history during a late season home game against the Jaguars in 2016. In my opinion, if the Texans stick with navy as a primary, they should keep a red/white home game, and replace one of the two color rush games with this beauty. Also what the hell happened to the painted navy end zones for the Texans: They had them for one year, also 2016, and then ditched them. Idk why they can’t have painted end zones, they play indoors on turf and I don’t think they share the stadium with anyone. 27 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MJD7 3,389 Posted January 28 16 hours ago, throwmesomepics said: Idk if the Texans discussion is still going on but I wanted to add that this was the Texans best combo: It looks especially good with the red socks. I believe they’ve only worn it once in franchise history during a late season home game against the Jaguars in 2016. In my opinion, if the Texans stick with navy as a primary, they should keep a red/white home game, and replace one of the two color rush games with this beauty. This is a fantastic combo. If they made this the primary home uniform their identity would be immensely more interesting (a brighter red, as I mentioned earlier, would be an added bonus, although it already looks pretty nice here). Red socks paired with the navy pants on the road would be a necessity. I even think red pants with navy socks could work quite nicely. Overall, it would do the Texans a lot of good to embrace red within their identity rather than fall into mediocrity blending in with the rest of the navy teams the NFL already has to offer. 13 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rorinator 111 Posted January 29 Disappointing... You'd think after 16 years they would at least demote the lackluster 'B' to secondary status. It's a shame that we won't see the leaping tiger back at midfield either. 7 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BBTV 20,951 Posted January 29 Again, that could mean different things to different people. It could still be in the package but demoted. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the primary logo again. It could be, but take “reports” like that with a grain of salt. 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DG_ThenNowForever 16,729 Posted January 29 You think the Bengals would pay for all-new stationery? Lol not a chance. 6 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
