NFL 2022 Changes

[Discrim]

Well, we officially have the happiest scene of an elf outside of a Christmas special

[BBTV]

22 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

 

I'm pretty sure there was a time when the white lower portion was a separate sock. You can see it here, where the players have actually pulled the white sock up over the stripes of the color sock...

 

 

And this is a cool picture that's been on this site before of players wearing baseball-style stirrups, which they'd obviously wear a white sock over the top of...

 

 

My guess is that eventually the two-sock look just became so identifiable as "NFL" that they started to manufacture the single sock to copy the look.

 

I wonder what's up with the dude on the right.  Maybe the stirrups were the "home" socks and the high-striped single-sock was the road sock?

 

9 hours ago, Discrim said:

Just guessing here, but I recall seeing pictures of the colored portion of older NFL socks being stirrups, just worn beneath sanitaries rather than over them (first time I played organized football, I was issued stirrups, after that I bought soccer socks).  So probably similar reasoning as baseball...and oldschoolvikings beat me to it. 

 

That's really interesting.  I never thought anyone other than the refs wore stirrups.

 

So they'd either have the stirrup pulling against their bare foot, or be wearing full crew socks over stirrups over sannis.  That can't have been comfortable.

 

It does make sense that in the absence of a single over-the-calf sock, if they wanted a more complete look than just a high-white crew and then bare calf that the stirrup would be the way  to go,  it just seems like a lot of effort for little reward - especially when the technology existed to simply make the single sock.

[Discrim]

8 minutes ago, BBTV said:

So they'd either have the stirrup pulling against their bare foot, or be wearing full crew socks over stirrups over sannis.  That can't have been comfortable.

I wore mine in the first manner (this was 1996, mind you).  Wasn't especially uncomfortable, but the loops rode up all the time.

 

8 minutes ago, BBTV said:

It does make sense that in the absence of a single over-the-calf sock, if they wanted a more complete look than just a high-white crew and then bare calf that the stirrup would be the way  to go,  it just seems like a lot of effort for little reward - especially when the technology existed to simply make the single sock.

IIRC...the NFL Sock^TM basically came about because then NFL president Elmer Layden felt the bare calf look was unsightly.  That's basically it.

 

Interestingly, during my little journey down the rabbit hole, I came across something that's swept our friends across the pond: futballers have been having the bottoms of their club issue socks cut off in order to accomodate grip socks, which have become popular because of how they're meant to prevent players' feet from slipping around in their cleats compared to normal socks.

[ManillaToad]

Chiefs are doing a throwback field design for the TNF matchup against the Chargers

 

[TrueYankee26]

On 9/13/2022 at 11:33 AM, canzman said:

Browns field art announced... 

 

Not bad at all

[Germanshepherd]

I prefer yellow end zones for the Chiefs, but those are still awesome. 

[DCarp1231]

This thought popped into my head earlier today-

 

If a player’s jersey cut impedes on the majority of the jersey’s sleeve striping-

 

the player should be required to wear an undershirt that replicates the intended sleeve striping, like so-

(Nebraska’s execution was intentional, but for the sake of the point I’m using it as an example)

[damnyoutuesday]

15 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

This thought popped into my head earlier today-

 

If a player’s jersey cut impedes on the majority of the jersey’s sleeve striping-

 

the player should be required to wear and undershirt that replicates the intended sleeve striping, like so-

(Nebraska’s execution was intentional, but for the sake of the point I’m using it as an example)

We can't even get players to wear the socks provided to them, why do we think they would wear the undershirt provided to them

[WSU151]

50 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

This thought popped into my head earlier today-

 

If a player’s jersey cut impedes on the majority of the jersey’s sleeve striping-

 

the player should be required to wear an undershirt that replicates the intended sleeve striping, like so-

(Nebraska’s execution was intentional, but for the sake of the point I’m using it as an example)

 

Players would probably fight back on that and win pretty easily. 

[Bathysphere]

1 hour ago, MNtwins3 said:

We can't even get players to wear the socks provided to them, why do we think they would wear the undershirt provided to them

They literally cannot be assed to wear them.

 

 

Honestly it’s a more than proper throwback since in ‘97, the stripes were optional too since so many players would cut their sleeves off above them.

[BBTV]

The correct solution is to get rid of TV numbers and run the stripes vertically.  Or simply give up stripes.  I love classic uniforms as much as anyone, but horizontal stripes simply aren't practical anymore.

 

Any chance anyone could mock up a Bears or Packers uniform with vertical stripes?

[FiddySicks]

I really wanna hate the idea of vertical stripes, but I also would like to see how that could look. Texas A&M does/did it and I think it looks pretty good. 

[floydnimrod]

With Cleveland bringing back an old logo to put at midfield, I really wish the Bengals got rid of the Tiger B altogether during their uniform redesign, and brought back an actual Tiger logo to be everywhere. The 97-03 set of logos were great and would still be around if the team wasn't complete ass at that time.

[WSU151]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

The correct solution is to get rid of TV numbers and run the stripes vertically.  Or simply give up stripes.  I love classic uniforms as much as anyone, but horizontal stripes simply aren't practical anymore.

 

Any chance anyone could mock up a Bears or Packers uniform with vertical stripes?

 

The Browns and 49ers are proving stripes work. They both said “give us more stripes” the last few years. 

[tBBP]

57 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

I really wanna hate the idea of vertical stripes, but I also would like to see how that could look. Texas A&M does/did it and I think it looks pretty good. 

 

We had them...sort of...with the last Falcons uniform set. But I get what you mean...

[BBTV]

14 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

The Browns and 49ers are proving stripes work. They both said “give us more stripes” the last few years. 

 

They might as well just wear a logo patch that's simply stripes.  If it works, it's because our brains can be tricked into thinking they're stripes since we know what they're supposed to look like, and what they used to look like.  I would think that to anyone seeing them for the first ever time, they'd wonder why those striped panels exist.  Just my opinion.

 

This looks nice, even without the undersleeve.  

 

 

Hell - the Bears #1 font is essentially a vertical stripe.

[ManillaToad]

42 minutes ago, floydnimrod said:

With Cleveland bringing back an old logo to put at midfield, I really wish the Bengals got rid of the Tiger B altogether during their uniform redesign, and brought back an actual Tiger logo to be everywhere. The 97-03 set of logos were great and would still be around if the team wasn't complete ass at that time.

 

The majority of teams in the NFL should start using alternate logos more. Put them at midfield, in the endzones, on the uniforms.

[dont care]

7 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

They might as well just wear a logo patch that's simply stripes.  If it works, it's because our brains can be tricked into thinking they're stripes since we know what they're supposed to look like, and what they used to look like.  I would think that to anyone seeing them for the first ever time, they'd wonder why those striped panels exist.  Just my opinion.

 

This looks nice, even without the undersleeve.  

 

 

Hell - the Bears #1 font is essentially a vertical stripe.

I’m pretty sure orientation doesn’t make a stripe not look like a stripe. A stripe is a stripe whether it’s vertical, horizontal, or at a 55 degree angle because that’s what year Norte dame won a championship or what ever it was.

[BBTV]

3 hours ago, dont care said:

I’m pretty sure orientation doesn’t make a stripe not look like a stripe. A stripe is a stripe whether it’s vertical, horizontal, or at a 55 degree angle because that’s what year Norte dame won a championship or what ever it was.

 

I guess by the dictionary definition of 'stripe' that you're correct, but I'd hardly consider this in the spirit of what a stripe is for. 

 

I'm not sure how anyone who cares for stripes would be against the vertical idea since that's the only way you'll ever see a full stripe outside of a retail jersey. 

 

Even the guy on the right side of the Bears picture looks bad to me because there's no logical termination of his stripes.  They just disappear into the body of the jersey.  That's now how they were ever intended to look.

 

 

[GriffinM6]

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

I guess by the dictionary definition of 'stripe' that you're correct, but I'd hardly consider this in the spirit of what a stripe is for. 

 

I'm not sure how anyone who cares for stripes would be against the vertical idea since that's the only way you'll ever see a full stripe outside of a retail jersey. 

 

Even the guy on the right side of the Bears picture looks bad to me because there's no logical termination of his stripes.  They just disappear into the body of the jersey.  That's now how they were ever intended to look.

 

 

The issue isn't really the stripes themselves. It's the Nike logo that pushes everything down a bunch. In college it looks fine.