NFL 2022 Changes

[AFirestormToPurify]

3 minutes ago, dont care said:

“When you look at the league 10 years ago versus now it’s completely different. Went from one alternate or throwback that could only be worn 2x to now having teams with throwbacks,  alternates, and color rush uniforms that can be worn over 4x (I forget if it was 5 or 6 times the ravens wore their colorrush and alts the last 2 seasons) and now adding anadditional element being the helmet to mix and match where it doesn’t fit. ” this whole part that you refused to acknowledge because it’s true. The evidence of the other leagues doing the same thing evened the traditional teams that you say wouldn’t change for the sake of change and introducing a new revenue stream. If you don’t think Nike will try to pressure the league into some sorta city or reverse retro, or full blown color rush marketing gimmick that teams will have to wear then you are naive.

That's just evidence that a 2nd helmet option was gonna come back eventually, not necessarily evidence that teams will use it to pump out garish looking helmets that will dilute their identity just because they can. Where is the evidence that the Steelers, Cowboys, Bears or Packers will wear something as equally unattractive as the Jaguars split helmet? The Packers are still wearing an outdated jersey template and I'M the naive one for thinking they'll say "thanks but no thanks" to any off-the-wall ideas Nike may come up with? If the league has shown anything lately is that they CAN'T and WON'T pressure any team into wearing what they want. The Rams alternate jersey in the SB, the sock situation, the new number rules. They won't force anyone to wear chrome helmets

[AFirestormToPurify]

19 hours ago, dont care said:

The commanders…

Are you really gonna use them as an example? They needed a clean break from their old nickname. Who else is in their situation and needs to make a splash?  You're afraid the Colts will use the Commanders as an example? lol

They almost need to be treated as an expansion team. It's not like they can go retro anyway

[ramsjetsthunder]

As the Cardinals are the first team listed alphabetically, I have probably redesigned them more than any other team. Here is my latest creation I did a few months back. TV numbers may have been a good addition also.

[oldschoolvikings]

15 minutes ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

The way I see it, I'm not the one being condescending. You made no point. You just said my (really tame) ideas were, and I quote, "horrid".

 

So I call literally all your ideas horrid, follow that up throwing your "knee jerk reaction" comment back at you, and you can't read the sarcasm?

 

My point was if you want someone to fairly consider your opinions, you should do the same for them and not dismiss them as "new=bad".

[MJD7]

The “old=good, new=bad” stereotype is so tired that it doesn’t even deserve acknowledgment at this point. Like @oldschoolvikings said, it’s an attempt to belittle and invalidate another’s opinion without respecting the simple fact that someone else might simply have a different opinion.

 

As for me, I’m gonna wait until some of the alternate helmets start getting released before I make any judgement, but I can’t say I’m optimistic. I’ve spent quite a bit of time trying out other colors for helmets in doing concepts, and honestly,  I think very few NFL teams stand to benefit from having an extra helmet, and virtually none of them do if it’s not a throwback. I don’t really consider myself a traditionalist, but I do like the brand equity that the one-helmet rule helped to maintain. Like @gosioux76 said, since the NFL season is only 17 games, any deviation from the typical branding is much more scrutinized than it would be during an 82-game NBA season.

 

With that being said, here are my predictions for what the alternate shells will end up being (based on @BigDmo’s list):

• Arizona: probably black for their alternate jersey, although I think copper would be more interesting (maybe for their eventual redesign)
• Carolina: black or Panther blue seem equally likely, and I think either would be an improvement over silver (the sooner the Panthers get rid of silver in their identity, the better in my opinion).
• Chicago: this is the most confusing inclusion, the only thing I can think of is possibly an orange version of the throwback helmet with stripes.
• Cincinnati: this is probably the most obvious one, they’ll almost certainly go with the “white tiger” look, which I honestly think will look pretty nice.
• Houston: I’d be interested in seeing a “Battle Red” alternate helmet.
• New Orleans: probably a more “old gold” helmet to match the Color Rush, although a black or white helmet wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world in this case. 
• New York Jets: probably a black helmet to complete the blackout look, although I’d prefer white. 
• Philadelphia: probably another black helmet, since kelly green seems unlikely for 2022.
• Washington: we already saw this one (unfortunately).

Overall, I think about half of those best-case scenarios have a chance at improving the team’s brand (Carolina, Cincinnati, Houston, and New Orleans, in particular). The rest I’d be fine without.

[AFirestormToPurify]

26 minutes ago, MJD7 said:

The “old=good, new=bad” stereotype is so tired that it doesn’t even deserve acknowledgment at this point. Like @oldschoolvikings said, it’s an attempt to belittle and invalidate another’s opinion without respecting that someone else might simply have a different opinion.

Not really. It's just an oversimplification but I still feel it's rather accurate. It's about as annoying as being told Sol is a "stupid" colour. Plenty of people on here are waaaaay more disrespectful than I could ever be, and don't even make any effort whatsoever in explaining their point of view further than, it's uncommon or new, therefore it's stupid

I still haven't heard any other reason in favour of not having 2nd shell other than being scared that teams will come up with the most garish and distasteful designs possible. Like this is the only option:

And the Raiders POSSIBLY (like what are the odds one in a million?) having a black helmet is just as bad as that monstrosity. Why? Because "we'll they've been wearing X colour for 50 years so any other option in their palette is horrific"

The basis of the argument against 2nd shells so far is "change is scary and bad". I'm not making this up, look at the replies I got

I'm not a hypocrite either, I've had knee jerk reactions before like when my Habs unveiled a blue jersey, so I know one when I see one. It's just tiring to read about how stupid or dumb a certain pants or helmet colour would look just because some people prefer traditional uniforms, and I find it ironic that I'm the one being disrespectful and belittling for pointing it out without resorting to calling anyone stupid or dumb

[guest23]

8 minutes ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

Not really. It's just an oversimplification but I still feel it's rather accurate. It's about as annoying as being told Sol is a "stupid" colour. Plenty of people on here are waaaaay more disrespectful than I could ever be, and don't even make any effort whatsoever in explaining their point of view further than, it's uncommon or new, therefore it's stupid

I still haven't heard any other reason in favour of not having 2nd shell other than being scared that teams will come up with the most garish and distasteful designs possible. Like this is the only option:

And the Raiders POSSIBLY (like what are the odds one in a million?) having a black helmet is just as bad as that monstrosity. Why? Because "we'll they've been wearing X colour for 50 years so any other option in their palette is horrific"

The basis of the argument against 2nd shells so far is "change is scary and bad". I'm not making this up, look at the replies I got

I'm not a hypocrite either, I've had knee jerk reactions before like when my Habs unveiled a blue jersey, so I know one when I see one. It's just tiring to read about how stupid or dumb a certain pants or helmet colour would look just because some people prefer traditional uniforms, and I find it ironic that I'm the one being disrespectful and belittling for pointing it out without resorting to calling anyone stupid or dumb

 

Your characterization is off a bit. The raiders org like others know that they have build a massive brand and mystique around silver/black/silver and despite carolina's overstepping, they own that look and choose to stick with it. Sure they could muddy the waters with a cool looking black/silver/black alt uniform but they see no reason to. 

[DCarp1231]

The furthest I can see the Raiders ever going is a black facemask

[AFirestormToPurify]

8 minutes ago, guest23 said:

 

Your characterization is off a bit. The raiders org like others know that they have build a massive brand and mystique around silver/black/silver and despite carolina's overstepping, they own that look and choose to stick with it. Sure they could muddy the waters with a cool looking black/silver/black alt uniform but they see no reason to. 

That's what I've been trying to say all along. Why is everyone so scared that the 2nd helmet will absolutely HAVE to look like :censored: because Nike is this big evil corporation that wants to destroy identities? KNEE JERK REACTION.

 

[Indigo]

6 minutes ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

That's what I've been trying to say all along. Why is everyone so scared that the 2nd helmet will absolutely HAVE to look like because Nike is this big evil corporation that wants to destroy identities? KNEE JERK REACTION.

 

A knee jerk reaction would be, oh I don’t know, assuming that someone doesn’t like an idea simply because it’s new. Not like anyone would do that…

[MJD7]

2 hours ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

I still haven't heard any other reason in favour of not having 2nd shell other than being scared that teams will come up with the most garish and distasteful designs possible.

I think that’s a bit of an assumption on your part. For me, I’m not necessarily hesitant on the removal of the one-helmet rule because I’m afraid every helmet will be garish, but just that I strongly suspect most if not all of them will be unnecessary. Take your black Raiders helmet example that you consistently bring up:

2 hours ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

And the Raiders POSSIBLY (like what are the odds one in a million?) having a black helmet is just as bad as that monstrosity. Why? Because "we'll they've been wearing X colour for 50 years so any other option in their palette is horrific"

The basis of the argument against 2nd shells so far is "change is scary and bad".

Do I think a black helmet for the Raiders would look fine? Sure, a blackout look could honestly be pretty cool for them.

 

Do I think it’s needed, or adds anything to the brand? Nah, not really. The Raiders look is classic as-is, and adding a black helmet kind of takes away from the “no nonsense” brand they have going for them.

[AFirestormToPurify]

29 minutes ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

A knee jerk reaction would be, oh I don’t know, assuming that someone doesn’t like an idea simply because it’s new. Not like anyone would do that…

Not at all. I've spent all day arguing with people, safe to say I'm not assuming anything lol. It just confirmed what I already knew. It's always the same old tired reasons. They don't like the idea of a black Raiders helmet, not because black wouldn't work, but because they've worn silver since the dawn of time. Which is to say, new=bad. Cause there's nothing objectively wrong with a black helmet. All anyone can come up with is, "b-but they've never worn black". Basically, don't fix it if ain't broken + no fun allowed

 

Anyway, once again sorry everyone for derailing the thread. I thought the discussion was entertaining at first but now that I'm just repeating things I've already said because not everyone bothered to read the whole thing (which is perfectly understandable lol), it's no longer fun and it feels like a chore. I'm gonna go at the rink instead!

 

[guest23]

2 hours ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

Not at all. I've spent all day arguing with people, safe to say I'm not assuming anything lol. It just confirmed what I already knew. It's always the same old tired reasons. They don't like the idea of a black Raiders helmet, not because black wouldn't work, but because they've worn silver since the dawn of time. Which is to say, new=bad. Cause there's nothing objectively wrong with a black helmet. All anyone can come up with is, "b-but they've never worn black". Basically, don't fix it if ain't broken + no fun allowed

 

Anyway, once again sorry everyone for derailing the thread. I thought the discussion was entertaining at first but now that I'm just repeating things I've already said because not everyone bothered to read the whole thing (which is perfectly understandable lol), it's no longer fun and it feels like a chore. I'm gonna go at the rink instead!

 

 

I think you're still missing the point. What makes great brands great brands is oftentimes what they choose not to do with their visual identity.  They know what they have and it works for them, and when you look at the most admired, longest lasting, most valuable brands they often are the most consistent with their visual presentation and rarely steer from that.

[JTernup]

4 hours ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

And the Raiders POSSIBLY (like what are the odds one in a million?) having a black helmet is just as bad as that monstrosity. Why? 

I’m more open to second helmets than a lot of folks on this board. But I’m going to attempt to answer this in good faith.

 

I’m a Chiefs fan and the rivalry with the Raiders is one of my favorite in all of sports from a history and uniform perspective. Those games have looked nearly identical for 60 years and I find that to be so cool! The possibility of the Raiders breaking out black helmets and pants at Arrowhead against the Chiefs in their new white helmets makes me physically ill. I want Chiefs-Raiders to look like Chiefs-Raiders, not a random Purdue-Nebraska game.

 

Now you may say that that could never happen but we’d probable say the same thing about Lakers-Celtics 10 years ago and look where that got us…

[Old School Fool]

The only alternate helmet the Raiders could and should wear is a 1960 throwback from their first season. Other than that they should never ever mess with the helmet.

 

[Est1980]

13 hours ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

Not really. It's just an oversimplification but I still feel it's rather accurate. It's about as annoying as being told Sol is a "stupid" colour. Plenty of people on here are waaaaay more disrespectful than I could ever be, and don't even make any effort whatsoever in explaining their point of view further than, it's uncommon or new, therefore it's stupid

I still haven't heard any other reason in favour of not having 2nd shell other than being scared that teams will come up with the most garish and distasteful designs possible. Like this is the only option:

And the Raiders POSSIBLY (like what are the odds one in a million?) having a black helmet is just as bad as that monstrosity. Why? Because "we'll they've been wearing X colour for 50 years so any other option in their palette is horrific"

The basis of the argument against 2nd shells so far is "change is scary and bad". I'm not making this up, look at the replies I got

I'm not a hypocrite either, I've had knee jerk reactions before like when my Habs unveiled a blue jersey, so I know one when I see one. It's just tiring to read about how stupid or dumb a certain pants or helmet colour would look just because some people prefer traditional uniforms, and I find it ironic that I'm the one being disrespectful and belittling for pointing it out without resorting to calling anyone stupid or dumb

 

Everytime I look at that Jags helmet I wonder, could they have used candy paint to get a better blended effect, geez?  It works for cars, shouldn't it work for helmets or is the material too different? Was it too expensive? 

[PaleVermilion81]

15 minutes ago, Est1980 said:

 

Everytime I look at that Jags helmet I wonder, could they have used candy paint to get a better blended effect, geez?  It works for cars, shouldn't it work for helmets or is the material too different? Was it too expensive? 

 

They were fading from a matte black to a metallic gold. Those 2 finishes don't really lend to smooth blending is my theory.

[Sport]

16 hours ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

You can be scared all you want, I see no evidence pointing to that conclusion. You can fear a slippery slope all you want, I just can't see the Steelers getting a chrome helmet or the Packers mimicking Swiss cheese with fake holes on their helmets because the Commanders have a black helmet or because the NBA, a different league, a different sport even, are hellbent on selling as many jerseys as possible and have next to no strong, consistent identities save for a handful of teams

Your irrational fear of matte black or chrome helmets is what is stopping you from embracing the endless possibilities of having a secondary helmet and frankly, I just find it unfortunate for you. And I'm not specifically singling you out, but just the people who hate/dread the idea of a 2nd helmet in general

 

Don't put words in my mouth, rookie. 

[jws008]

IDK, my reaction to whole second helmet thing is that it will be exactly like new uniform sets:

1. Some of them will be god awful.
2. Some of them will be good.
3. The percentage of them that become "classic" uniform elements after more than a few seasons will be small; BUT among the best will be those that either are a throwback, or are inspired by a throwback.
4. #3 doesn't necessarily exclude the idea that something new will fit in that category, but I suspect it will be a smaller subset.

IMHO, an example from another sport of #4 is the LA Lakers white jersey -- while I'll even admit that I was not a fan of them when they were introduced, I do think they've been used enough now that when people think of an LA Lakers jersey, they think of the purple set, the yellow set, and the white set (not yellow and purple exclusively).

[MJWalker45]

19 hours ago, dont care said:

Look at college football, that is what we are afraid of. The rules as they were suppressed that for the most part. Look how many of those games you can turn on and don’t know who’s playing because Florida is wearing an olive green gator print uniform, or someone wearing a pink breast cancer uniform, or some other nonsense. When we have seen it in every other sports league you have to see why we don’t want the one league to not go in that direction because it is a slippery slope, and that slope gets steep in a hurry.

The difference I see is, the NFL still has to sign off on these helmets, just like they do the rest of the uniform. The NFL will make sure that the Seahawks logos are clearly visible, unlike Louisville and other college helmets that had a look that fit Air Force, Army or Navy  more than them.

 

 

 

They also most likely wouldn't allow this:

Over this: