NFL 2022 Changes

[SportsFan12]

At least the Ravens decided to wear as much black as possible themselves. God forbid they wear purple or even white pants.

[Germanshepherd]

Eh I watch enough Falcons games (unfortunately) to know their uniforms on sight pretty easy, but I can see why other more fortunate souls would be confused. 
 

The number font, red logo, field lighting, and dark colors really read Texans at first glance. 

[_RH_]

36 minutes ago, NFLfan10 said:

At least the Ravens decided to wear as much black as possible themselves. God forbid they wear purple or even white pants.

While I don't disagree, this is on ARI.  They know damn well BAL has black helmet, pants, and socks.  Teams shouldn't be allowed to wear alts matching their opponents' palette this closely. 

[Discrim]

On 8/20/2022 at 1:41 PM, FiddySicks said:

I thought that they were, but had it in my head that maybe the Bears were older. Was too lazy to stop typing and look it up. 

Yeah, it doesn't really feel that way given that the Cards have moved twice, have usually been mediocre to awful, and they're probably the only team out there whose attempted sale resulted in an entire rival league forming...out of several prospective buyers they turned down, at that  

[VDizzle12]

From a distance the Cardinals almost look like the Falcons throwbacks. So much black and white. The worst part is the helmet logo is practically unrecognizable from a distance. Just looks like a dark red blob on a glossy black helmet. Could have at least kept the white stroke around the cardinal logo or gone with red helmets. 

[Survival79]

52 minutes ago, VDizzle12 said:

From a distance the Falcons almost look like the Falcons throwbacks.

 

[BJ Sands]

 

[Old School Fool]

The Cardinals helmet is surprisingly nice but pairing it with the standard alternate jersey is a bad idea. They just looked like the 2004 Falcons instead and I don't usually like to make comparisons like that but it was hard not to feel that way. The helmet is clearly designed for the Color Rush uniform and will look more appropriate.

 

[O.C.D]

58 minutes ago, BJ Sands said:

 

I'd love to see

black helmet 

red jersey's

black pants 

red socks

[Cujo]

1 hour ago, Old School Fool said:

The Cardinals helmet is surprisingly nice but pairing it with the standard alternate jersey is a bad idea. They just looked like the 2004 Falcons instead and I don't usually like to make comparisons like that but it was hard not to feel that way. The helmet is clearly designed for the Color Rush uniform and will look more appropriate.

 

 

Regardless of helmet, these uniforms look like complete ass -- there's no way around it.

[dont care]

I am desperately trying to see the red flake in these pictures and I just can’t. The initial promo shots had it looking like they would look like a red version of the jaguars helmet from the early 2010’s but in reality they just look like black helmets.

[gosioux76]

On 8/21/2022 at 1:13 AM, Brave-Bird 08 said:

Alright y’all, I feel like I’ve built a solid reputation on these boards over the years, decades? Whatever. I have to get something off my chest: 

 

I can’t believe how much I enjoy the new Washington uniforms, after rejecting them at the unveil. 

 

Yeah, they’re not the Joe Gibbs era strips we all love. They don’t follow normal uniform conventions. But, with the burgundy pants today, they looked good. The yellow checks in the sleeve do more service than I thought they would for balance, and the white/black diamond theme is either 1) just fun to look at or 2) I’m being hoodwinked by how it goes well with their jersey patch they’re wearing 

 

for a Washington team, it’s kind of an interesting blend between the old gold/burgundy and that new white/diamond theme, and they can get away with that as a D.C. based franchise. 
 

idk. I mean I’m someone who loves the Seahawks and Falcons uniforms, so my palate for contemporary garb is higher. But I’ve shocked myself — I hate mono-white looks, but the set they wore today wasn’t bad. It’s just different. 

 

All your points are fair, except this: those aren't "yellow checks" adding the only dash of yellow on those uniforms. They're Nike Swooshes, making it yet another example where Nike has been allowed to design a uniform in which its own brand becomes a significant functional design element. 

 

On most uniforms, the Swoosh is apparent, but innocuous: always a team color, but one that generally blends in with the rest of the uniform. But here, it was designed to be the only thing in yellow, a color that is otherwise sorely needed to avoid being so maroon heavy that it is incongruous to the helmet and the overall brand. 

 

We've seen this before, only applied differently, with the Seahawks. It was Nike's first launch after taking over the NFL, and the uniforms still contain a special design element on the shoulder seemingly just to give the Swoosh more prominence. 

 

I'm not of the mind to just bash the manufacturers for bad designs. Teams own that and have the power in them to say "no." This, however, feels far more insidious on the part of Nike. It's a brand stealing attention away from another brand. I hate it. 

[BBTV]

4 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

All your points are fair, except this: those aren't "yellow checks" adding the only dash of yellow on those uniforms. They're Nike Swooshes, making it yet another example where Nike has been allowed to design a uniform in which its own brand becomes a significant functional design element. 

 

On most uniforms, the Swoosh is apparent, but innocuous: always a team color, but one that generally blends in with the rest of the uniform. But here, it was designed to be the only thing in yellow, a color that is otherwise sorely needed to avoid being so maroon heavy that it is incongruous to the helmet and the overall brand.

I’ve made this exact same point dozens of times, as it also applies to the Titans with the red swoosh. Changing advertisers would result in basically a new design since the swoosh is so tightly integrated in the design. It would look very odd if a RBK vector or some other logo just showed up there. A lot more noticeable than (for example) an Eagles jersey where the white Puma changed to a white vector changed to a white swoosh over the Eagle head (which is the clear focus on the sleeve) and I doubt most people noticed or cared. 

[gosioux76]

10 minutes ago, BBTV said:

I’ve made this exact same point dozens of times, as it also applies to the Titans with the red swoosh. Changing advertisers would result in basically a new design since the swoosh is so tightly integrated in the design. It would look very odd if a RBK vector or some other logo just showed up there. A lot more noticeable than (for example) an Eagles jersey where the white Puma changed to a white vector changed to a white swoosh over the Eagle head (which is the clear focus on the sleeve) and I doubt most people noticed or cared. 

 

This is a great point about eventual manufacturer changes. I hadn't considered that, but you're absolutely correct. 

[Est1980]

On 8/21/2022 at 1:24 AM, dont care said:

The NFL needs to follow their uniform policy and fine these jobronis for not having tucked in jerseys

 
This right here
The way players wear uniforms contributes to the drop in aesthetics, at least for me.  The radically untucked jersey, the one color extended sock look, it makes them look like Pop Warner teams .   
 

Watching my Fins vs Raiders this weekend and i noticed most of Miami’s players had one long aqua sock while some LV had the traditional combination w a lot of the players wearing them the “right” way ( 25% team color, 75% white) which got me thinking if this is a player choice (by vote) or team standard.  Whatever the reason may be, it’s definitely an eyesore for me. 

[oldschoolvikings]

51 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

All your points are fair, except this: those aren't "yellow checks" adding the only dash of yellow on those uniforms. They're Nike Swooshes, making it yet another example where Nike has been allowed to design a uniform in which its own brand becomes a significant functional design element. 

 

On most uniforms, the Swoosh is apparent, but innocuous: always a team color, but one that generally blends in with the rest of the uniform. But here, it was designed to be the only thing in yellow, a color that is otherwise sorely needed to avoid being so maroon heavy that it is incongruous to the helmet and the overall brand. 

 

We've seen this before, only applied differently, with the Seahawks. It was Nike's first launch after taking over the NFL, and the uniforms still contain a special design element on the shoulder seemingly just to give the Swoosh more prominence. 

 

I'm not of the mind to just bash the manufacturers for bad designs. Teams own that and have the power in them to say "no." This, however, feels far more insidious on the part of Nike. It's a brand stealing attention away from another brand. I hate it. 

 

44 minutes ago, BBTV said:

I’ve made this exact same point dozens of times, as it also applies to the Titans with the red swoosh. Changing advertisers would result in basically a new design since the swoosh is so tightly integrated in the design. It would look very odd if a RBK vector or some other logo just showed up there. A lot more noticeable than (for example) an Eagles jersey where the white Puma changed to a white vector changed to a white swoosh over the Eagle head (which is the clear focus on the sleeve) and I doubt most people noticed or cared. 

 

You guys forgot one...

 

 

Outside of the cat's tongue, the swoosh is the only teal on the road jersey.

[Indigo]

Do these count?

[gosioux76]

29 minutes ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

Do these count?

100%. That and the Jaguars are more great examples, although I think removing those marks, or changing their colors, wouldn't result is as dramatic a change as it would for the Seahawks and Commanders. In other words, it wouldn't be as noticeable were they gone or recolored. 

[leopard88]

14 hours ago, _RH_ said:

While I don't disagree, this is on ARI.  They know damn well BAL has black helmet, pants, and socks.  Teams shouldn't be allowed to wear alts matching their opponents' palette this closely. 

 

I agree with this.  It basically looked like a scrimmage, but it was the Cardinals who decided to wear black helmets and black jerseys against a team with black helmets and black pants.

[leopard88]

On 8/20/2022 at 6:37 AM, Old School Fool said:

I don't like the Cowboys helmet for the same reason I don't like the Bears helmet in that they are one of the teams that should not have an alternate helmet unless it's for a throwback. Now they will just not look like the Cowboys and that's just about the dumbest thing you can do. The team hasn't had a white helmet since 1963 and now they will suddenly wear a new white helmet for a random game in Nashville. Not in a home game, not against a rival team, against the Tennesse Titans on a Thursday night.  That's stupid.

 

Helmet branding is important regardless of how good alternate helmets can be. Some teams seriously need to stay in their lane.  I'm not saying I don't want alternate helmets, it's just that I want them to be for teams that don't have iconic helmets and more importantly I want the helmets to actually be creative and make sense.

 

The Cardinals helmet shouldn't be messed with but they made it work by bringing something new to the table design wise, it wasn't just some cheap color swap and calling it a day. They actually modified the decal, added red flakes, that's actually interesting and makes it easier to stomach.

 

All I ask is that teams try harder and stop being stupid.

 

 

I second this wholeheartedly.  The silver helmet with the blue star is such an ingrained part of the Cowboys image that it just feels completely wrong to do away with it . . . even for 1-2 games per year.