NFL 2023 Changes

[DCarp1231]

Hopefully the Seattle throwbacks will kick start the idea of the team changing uniforms

[MCM0313]

1 hour ago, fouhy12 said:

I don't hate the idea of the 2000s era Seahawks blue returning in some fashion. If Nike could actually make it look right (which I doubt), that shade of blue with the action green on the throwback template may look nice. 

 

In fact, I may have to mock that up and post something over in concepts later. 

Please do!

[HOOVER]

2 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

I'm not sure why anybody would advocate for a uniform that combines the throwback template with the current colors.  IMO, the current colors are pretty bad. That dull navy blue and that ugly slime green?  No thanks.  And the throwback colors are the best thing about the older uniforms. Royal blue and kelly green are gorgeous together.   The colors are the best thing about the throwback.

That's your opinion, but the current colors rejuvenated this franchise, which came off the previously even duller Blue and minimal Lime Green.  When Seattle retired this Throwback look in 2002, it was a very dated look. 

 

While I'd agree that this Throwback is great, and the colors certainly work, I think you'd find a great deal of other opinions that would disagree with you.  The Seahawks brand has never been stronger since the 2012 refresh.

Nostalgia is great.  But making permanent decisions from nostalgic sentiment isn't always the best choice.

[oldschoolvikings]

1 hour ago, HOOVER said:

That's your opinion, but the current colors rejuvenated this franchise, which came off the previously even duller Blue and minimal Lime Green.  When Seattle retired this Throwback look in 2002, it was a very dated look. 

 

While I'd agree that this Throwback is great, and the colors certainly work, I think you'd find a great deal of other opinions that would disagree with you.  The Seahawks brand has never been stronger since the 2012 refresh.

Nostalgia is great.  But making permanent decisions from nostalgic sentiment isn't always the best choice.

Well, yes, that is just my opinion.  That’s why I wrote IMO.  I’m definitely not claiming any of it as fact.  I just really love that particular color scheme and I always have. Hartford Whalers, original Timber Wolves, Vancouver Canucks.  All look amazing.  
 

But I’m going to take issue with the “nostalgia” business.  A few pages back I was told that same basic thing about my excitement over the Vikings throwback.  I think I speak for more than a few of us who get tired of being told that our opinions are based on nostalgia or hatred of anything new or just liking it cause it’s old, or whatever else gets trotted out as a way of dismissing someone else’s opinion.  (I’m not saying you’re necessarily doing that here but it’s close enough to that particular put down that it makes me think of it.)

 

Honestly, unlike the Vikings’ spectacular throwback, I’m not even that crazy about the Seahawks overall design, which I think is a bit clunky. The pants stripes are awkward and I’m not a fan of the sleeve logo.  I never really need to see the same logo repeated on both the helmet and the jersey.  So it isn’t nostalgia for that design, it’s just the colors which are flat out beautiful.  Because they are.  
 

Also, I think you might get some arguments about how strong the current Seahawks brand is.  Five or six years ago yes, but now a lot of people are feeling like it’s really showing its age.  There’s a reason people are going crazy for this throwback, and it can’t just be dismissed as nostalgia.  

[HOOVER]

1 hour ago, oldschoolvikings said:

Well, yes, that is just my opinion.  That’s why I wrote IMO.  I’m definitely not claiming any of it as fact.  I just really love that particular color scheme and I always have. Hartford Whalers, original Timber Wolves, Vancouver Canucks.  All look amazing.  
 

But I’m going to take issue with the “nostalgia” business.  A few pages back I was told that same basic thing about my excitement over the Vikings throwback.  I think I speak for more than a few of us who get tired of being told that our opinions are based on nostalgia or hatred of anything new or just liking it cause it’s old, or whatever else gets trotted out as a way of dismissing someone else’s opinion.  (I’m not saying you’re necessarily doing that here but it’s close enough to that particular put down that it makes me think of it.)

 

Honestly, unlike the Vikings’ spectacular throwback, I’m not even that crazy about the Seahawks overall design, which I think is a bit clunky. The pants stripes are awkward and I’m not a fan of the sleeve logo.  I never really need to see the same logo repeated on both the helmet and the jersey.  So it isn’t nostalgia for that design, it’s just the colors which are flat out beautiful.  Because they are.  
 

Also, I think you might get some arguments about how strong the current Seahawks brand is.  Five or six years ago yes, but now a lot of people are feeling like it’s really showing its age.  There’s a reason people are going crazy for this throwback, and it can’t just be dismissed as nostalgia.  

I understand your position regarding the nostalgia critics and I agree that the current Seahawks uniform design is starting to age.  

[The_Admiral]

20 hours ago, Sodboy13 said:

DC Independent Football Club

NicoTan: The Smoking Cessation Sunscreen is the most Daniel Snyder idea Daniel Snyder never had

[The_Admiral]

Cannot for the life of me understand the nostalgia for the old Seahawks uniforms, by the way. All they make me think of is when the Seahawks were a forever-.500 team that everyone forgot about, an adjunct to the old AFL West that never fit and never mattered. They're the St. Louis Football Cardinals without the historical cachet, but unlike the Cardinals' efforts, the Seahawks' tweaks have been vast improvements. I don't think the current uniforms get everything right, nor did the 2000s set, but the '80s/'90s set doesn't really get anything right. But people seem very positive about it, so maybe I have no clue what I'm talking about on this one.

[damnyoutuesday]

6 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Cannot for the life of me understand the nostalgia for the old Seahawks uniforms, by the way. All they make me think of is when the Seahawks were a forever-.500 team that everyone forgot about, an adjunct to the old AFL West that never fit and never mattered. They're the St. Louis Football Cardinals without the historical cachet, but unlike the Cardinals' efforts, the Seahawks' tweaks have been vast improvements. I don't think the current uniforms get everything right, nor did the 2000s set, but the '80s/'90s set doesn't really get anything right. But people seem very positive about it, so maybe I have no clue what I'm talking about on this one.

The way I've always seen it is look at how that specific team's fanbase reacts to it. It doesn't really matter what a Vikings or Jets fan thinks of them, as long as Seattle fans love them (which seems to be the case). I know a lot of people on here also hate the Seahawks regular set but Seattle fans love them also

[BBTV]

Also, those old Seahawks blue uniforms were mostly worn in the dull-sterile-soulless Kingdome, so they in turn also looked dull.  You almost never saw them under bright-natural light, where admittedly they looked significantly better.  I only rarely got to see them live on TV, because the Seahawks were practically never in any national game, but used to collect football cards in the '80s and remember thinking how dull they looked compared to some of the other teams that also wore a royal-ish blue.

 

It's my opinion that the current Seahawks colors should be their "forever" colors, whether they keep the current uniforms (which IMO have aged pretty well for a non-traditional uniform) or adopt a more traditional look (I'm in the crowd that thinks the above recoloring of the throwback looks pretty good.)

[j'villejags]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

Also, those old Seahawks blue uniforms were mostly worn in the dull-sterile-soulless Kingdome, so they in turn also looked dull.  You almost never saw them under bright-natural light, where admittedly they looked significantly better.  I only rarely got to see them live on TV, because the Seahawks were practically never in any national game, but used to collect football cards in the '80s and remember thinking how dull they looked compared to some of the other teams that also wore a royal-ish blue.

 

It's my opinion that the current Seahawks colors should be their "forever" colors, whether they keep the current uniforms (which IMO have aged pretty well for a non-traditional uniform) or adopt a more traditional look (I'm in the crowd that thinks the above recoloring of the throwback looks pretty good.)

Great point. And even post-Kingdome, these throwbacks will naturally look a bit more dull playing under cloudy skies more often than not.

[FiddySicks]

9 hours ago, PlayGloria said:

Also I have posted this a few times back when they first came out with the Commanders branding, but I think the throwback below were absolutely fantastic out of Washington. If I were in charge of the rebrand, this would have been my basis for the rebrand - sans the old logos. This set and the name Pigskins would have worked really well IMO

 

You can miss me with some of that Pigskins stuff, but as for the uniform part, I 100% agree. Washington would’ve been just fine if they had, like, just kept the Washington Football Team name with these uniforms (sans shoulder logo, as you said). The more simple the better for a team in their predicament. The blank leather looking helmet is perfect. It harkens back to an era the NFL constantly romanticizes, is completely unique in the NFL (even the Browns have stripes), and solves their branding issue without looking completely stupid or contrived (like they currently do). 

[oldschoolvikings]

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

Also, those old Seahawks blue uniforms were mostly worn in the dull-sterile-soulless Kingdome, so they in turn also looked dull.  You almost never saw them under bright-natural light, where admittedly they looked significantly better.  I only rarely got to see them live on TV, because the Seahawks were practically never in any national game, but used to collect football cards in the '80s and remember thinking how dull they looked compared to some of the other teams that also wore a royal-ish blue.

 

 

Between the bad lighting of those old trash baggy-roof domes and the pre-HD televisions, a lot of people remember those old 80's and 90's uniforms as being darker/duller than the often were. The Viking message boards are full of people complaining about the new Vikings throwback because they aren't "the old darker purple",  but if you look at the actual game jerseys from that time in person, and compare them to the current jerseys, the colors aren't that different... certainly not as different as they appear in old videos (or in peoples memories).  Back then the Vikings helmets were definitely darker and bluer, but in person the jerseys were not much different from the current purple.  Maybe not exactly the same, but closer than most people are probably picturing.

 

The Seahawks' 80's and 90's uniforms are suffering from the same phenomenon, I'm sure.

[shstpt1]

11 hours ago, WBeltz said:

I never had an issue with Washington Football Team, and I actually liked it because it was one the nose (of course they’re a football team) and I think it was a different in terms of North American sports naming conventions and it felt unique and different. The uniforms maybe should’ve had a shift due to three looking the same as the prior name, but I was fine with the numbers on helmets, and the consistency of the look.

Unique as in generic, then sure. WFT was terrible, plain and simple. 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

7 minutes ago, shstpt1 said:

Unique as in generic, then sure. WFT was terrible, plain and simple. 

Hard disagree. 

[Gumball_Wizard]

29 minutes ago, shstpt1 said:

Unique as in generic, then sure. WFT was terrible, plain and simple. 

Like the national 55 mph speed limit, WFT just seems like a bad dream we all had at this point.

 

I literally called them the STRUTPAMs during that time. (Still The (Commanders) Until They Pick Another Mascot). Not joking.

[Chromatic]

Is there a history behind why people in Washington seem to want the name Wolves/Red Wolves so badly? If so, can someone explain? As a non fan of the team it just seems incredibly bland and minor league. "Washington Wolves" sounds like an EA create a team name chosen for alliteration. And while I'm aware "red wolves" are a real animal, specifying it in the team name just sounds like it is chosen to keep the prefix from "the team name prior to 'Football Team'," which is dumb idea and since they've moved away from that name they should move as far away as possible.

[The_Admiral]

Just now, Chromatic said:

Is there a history behind why people in Washington seem to want the name Wolves/Red Wolves so badly? If so, can someone explain? As a non fan of the team it just seems incredibly bland and minor league. "Washington Wolves" sounds like an EA create a team name, and while I'm aware "red wolves" are a real animal, specifying it in the team name just sounds like it is chosen to keep the prefix from '(Commanders)', which is dumb idea and since they've moved away from that name they should move as far away as possible.

 

That's just it: you're speaking as a non-fan. You're not an emotional or financial stakeholder here. Neither the base nor ownership wanted the change: it was, as I've talked about before, change not from the top down or bottom up but the middle out, the least relatable direction of change. If it were your team, you'd probably say you don't want the whole thing drawn up from scratch and would want to cling to whatever shred of continuity that you can.

[Chromatic]

7 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

That's just it: you're speaking as a non-fan. You're not an emotional or financial stakeholder here. Neither the base nor ownership wanted the change: it was, as I've talked about before, change not from the top down or bottom up but the middle out, the least relatable direction of change. If it were your team, you'd probably say you don't want the whole thing drawn up from scratch and would want to cling to whatever shred of continuity that you can.

Right but that's not my question. I'm asking why "Wolves" in particular has this groundswell of popularity, where that comes from, not why they want the name changed from 'Commanders' in the first place.

[The_Admiral]

Gotta be Red something, and no one can be mad at wolves.

[Chromatic]

3 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Gotta be Red something, and no one can be mad at wolves.

Clearly you don't live in a straw house.