NFL 2023 Changes

[MCM0313]

10 hours ago, Pigskin12 said:

This was a rule until 2019. No idea what genius came up with the idea to nullify it.

Was it? The Buccaneers in the first half of the 1990s wore orange socks and pants together. 

[SportsFan12]

16 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

I'm still confused about this. Is the white helmet going to be worn with the white jerseys every time, or did they just designate the white jersey/white pants as an alternate so they can break out the white helmets once in a while?

I am also confused. Their wording is quite unclear, but I am pretty sure they just mean that when they wear the white helmet, they got permission to use the regular white jersey for those games, like how the Panthers do with the black helmet/jersey. At the end of the video it still lists the Rams game as the game it is being worn this season.

 

I hope this is the case, and if so, they are making way too big of a deal over a pretty minor change.

 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

11 hours ago, Pigskin12 said:

This was a rule until 2019. No idea what genius came up with the idea to nullify it.

 

100% untrue.

The old NFL rule was that socks must have have white bottom and contrasting top, unless the top was also white in which case the socks must have stripes. E.g:



What changed in 2019 was the allowance of solid color socks (in non-Color Rush games). This is where you get solid white socks being worn, at first with dark pants but now frequently with white pants.



There was never a pants/socks must clash rule. The "leotard look" is quite old. Rarely the norm but very old.

 

[TBGKon]

2 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

I'm still confused about this. Is the white helmet going to be worn with the white jerseys every time, or did they just designate the white jersey/white pants as an alternate so they can break out the white helmets once in a while?

 

2 hours ago, Pigskin12 said:

I am also confused. Their wording is quite unclear, but I am pretty sure they just mean that when they wear the white helmet, they got permission to use the regular white jersey for those games, like how the Panthers do with the black helmet/jersey. At the end of the video it still lists the Rams game as the game it is being worn this season.

 

I hope this is the case, and if so, they are making way too big of a deal over a pretty minor change.

 

No, white bengal appears to be for two games with the existing road jerseys, and standard road uniforms for the rest.

 

At least the Bengals wont wear orange jerseys against the Browns.

 

 

[SportsFan12]

2 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

 

100% untrue.

The old NFL rule was that socks must have have white bottom and contrasting top, unless the top was also white in which case the socks must have stripes. E.g:

What changed in 2019 was the allowance of solid color socks (in non-Color Rush games). This is where you get solid white socks being worn, at first with dark pants but now frequently with white pants.

There was never a pants/socks must clash rule. The "leotard look" is quite old. Rarely the norm but very old.

 

My bad. I misread that original message. Main idea I was going for was that the league loosened the sock rules and I don' t feel there's any reason to believe things will go back to how they were any time soon.

[Sport]

A lot of people seem confused about the Bengals announcement yesterday. Allow me to break it down with visual aides

 

In 2016 they introduced these jerseys and pants as their "Color Rush". The one helmet rule in place at the time meant they had to use the regular orange lids. People everywhere said "those would look great with white helmets". 

 

 

They wore those as an alternate for five years and they were immensely popular. So much so that they became a jumping off point, if you will, for a full uniform redesign in 2021, which resulted in the home, road, and alternate unis they have now. 

 

 

 

So then in 2022 the NFL relaxed the one helmet rule, which meant the Bengals could finally pair white helmets with the jerseys and pants that were clearly yearning to be worn with white helmets. The problem, though, as opposed to 2016 is that the Color Rush jerseys now look very similar to the current road whites, but the NFL, for reasons never made clear, made the Bengals bring back the Color Rush jerseys to wear with the white jerseys. So now they have two white jerseys that look a lot like each other. 

 

 

 

The announcement made yesterday was simply that they don't need the Color Rush jerseys anymore and can wear the white helmets with the regular road white jerseys. 

 

 

Some people thought it meant a new jersey or a throwback or that they're going to wear the white helmets with the black or orange jerseys, which as far as I read the situation isn't happening. From a practicality standpoint the decision makes a lot more sense this way than carrying two white jerseys that aren't that different from one another, one of which uses a lot of elements from the previous uniform set. The matter of whether that looks better than the color rush is a separate issue. On the whole, I think it does. Now the shoulder stripes match the helmet, but I liked the crispness of the black block font without an outline and I'll miss that aspect of the Color Rush. 

[tBBP]

37 minutes ago, Sport said:

A lot of people seem confused about the Bengals announcement yesterday. Allow me to break it down with visual aides

 

In 2016 they introduced these jerseys and pants as their "Color Rush". The one helmet rule in place at the time meant they had to use the regular orange lids. People everywhere said "those would look great with white helmets". 

 

 

They wore those as an alternate for five years and they were immensely popular. So much so that they became a jumping off point, if you will, for a full uniform redesign in 2021, which resulted in the home, road, and alternate unis they have now. 

 

 

 

So then in 2022 the NFL relaxed the one helmet rule, which meant the Bengals could finally pair white helmets with the jerseys and pants that were clearly yearning to be worn with white helmets. The problem, though, as opposed to 2016 is that the Color Rush jerseys now look very similar to the current road whites, but the NFL, for reasons never made clear, made the Bengals bring back the Color Rush jerseys to wear with the white jerseys. So now they have two white jerseys that look a lot like each other. 

 

 

 

The announcement made yesterday was simply that they don't need the Color Rush jerseys anymore and can wear the white helmets with the regular road white jerseys. 

 

 

Some people thought it meant a new jersey or a throwback or that they're going to wear the white helmets with the black or orange jerseys, which as far as I read the situation isn't happening. From a practicality standpoint the decision makes a lot more sense this way than carrying two white jerseys that aren't that different from one another, one of which uses a lot of elements from the previous uniform set. The matter of whether that looks better than the color rush is a separate issue. On the whole, I think it does. Now the shoulder stripes match the helmet, but I liked the crispness of the black block font without an outline and I'll miss that aspect of the Color Rush. 

 

First, thanks for clarifying this, because that twitte—err, X video post had me all throwed off.

 

Second, speaking of that video post, these dangone "hype" videos have officially jumped the shark—maybe not all of them like IronChefShark, Greg "The Shark" Norman, Sharky the Shark Dog, the San Jose Sharks or Nanahue aka King Shark just yet, but dang close. Now if all that was unnecessary to spell out, then so too was all that mess in the Bengals' video just for one simple switch.

 

Third, does the NFL allowing Cincy to pair its alt helmet with their otherwise regular road unis open the door for other teams to pursue doing the same (I know Carolina already does this with their black helmets) which would then effectively lead to regular helmet swaps Ala college football? (I give it three years max before that becomes more commonplace than most of us care to think about.) With that said...

 

...Fourth, I personally LOVE Cincinnati's Jungle Kat alternate look (as mocked up above). Having said that, the one thing I wish they'd do with it is thicken up the orange strokes around the numbers. Even if that (and the swooshes, because of course) is all the orange on that uniform, at least it'd be a little more noticeable and effective. That said, they better stick to the black socks with that uniform...

[DCarp1231]

The white helmet makes the uniform look so lifeless.

[Brave-Bird 08]

6 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

The white helmet makes the uniform look so lifeless.

 

I agree. It's one of those things that made so much logical sense when the all-white alternates were released in 2016 that we all just kept waiting for it to happen, but when they actually wore them on the field I, at least, was like "oh man, this actually looks ridiculous and washed out."

 

Plus, once my brain goes to zebra, I can't unsee zebra.

[DCarp1231]

10 minutes ago, Brave-Bird 08 said:

 

I agree. It's one of those things that made so much logical sense when the all-white alternates were released in 2016 that we all just kept waiting for it to happen, but when they actually wore them on the field I, at least, was like "oh man, this actually looks ridiculous and washed out."

 

Plus, once my brain goes to zebra, I can't unsee zebra.

I understand the whole shtick is “omg icy white bengal”, but when the team essentially ignores one of the two main colors, it defeats the importance of uniformity and consistency throughout the identity.

 

This works 100% of the time-

 

This looks like ass 100% of the time-

 

Amazing what utilizing a major primary color does to a uniform. Even if it’s mostly all on the :censored:ing helmet.

 

 

Like you said, we’re watching the Cincinnati Zebras.

[VikWings]

17 hours ago, Pigskin12 said:

This was a rule until 2019. No idea what genius came up with the idea to nullify it.

 

That was just the rule were guys had to have on like the sanitaries (white bottom part) instead of just tights and regular socks. That rule needs to come back as well as it's made the non-contrast/legging look so much worse. For example the Vikings have been wearing purple socks with purple pants and the texans dropped red for navy years ago.

 

Like below the Vikings are still wearing purple socks, but with the white bottoms, which under my rule would need stripes. The socks on the color rushes, which you were referring to, used to be illegal, other than for color rush.

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Posted this before I saw Caroligian Steamroller's reply.

[Sec19Row53]

2 hours ago, tBBP said:

...Fourth, I personally LOVE Cincinnati's Jungle Kat alternate look (as mocked up above). Having said that, the one thing I wish they'd do with it is thicken up the orange strokes around the numbers. Even if that (and the swooshes, because of course) is all the orange on that uniform, at least it'd be a little more noticeable and effective. That said, they better stick to the black socks with that uniform...

You said Cincinnati Jungle Kats. I'm obligated to post my photo from their lone visit to Green Bay in af2 time.

[SportsFan12]

2 hours ago, Brave-Bird 08 said:

 

I agree. It's one of those things that made so much logical sense when the all-white alternates were released in 2016 that we all just kept waiting for it to happen, but when they actually wore them on the field I, at least, was like "oh man, this actually looks ridiculous and washed out."

 

Plus, once my brain goes to zebra, I can't unsee zebra.

I guess I was in the minority when I had no interest in it happening at any point. It looks as pointless and dull as I expected all along. I mean it’s literally a colorless uniform. At least they’re limiting it to one game at home, but I wish they would drop the random additional road game they’ve been using it for and go back to two orange games.

[The_Admiral]

As I've said before, the Bengals have maybe the best helmet in the league. They should wear it for every game. Given that helmets have functioned as de facto logos, I think every team should have one helmet for every game, but especially the Bengals. And I'm not referring to the zebra helmet.

[Mr. Krabs]

https://www.nbcsportschicago.com/nfl/chicago-bears/bears-news/chicago-bears-seemingly-change-primary-logo-to-the-bear-relegate-the-traditional-c/500431/

 

I must say this is a head scratcher from the Bears. The Wishbone "C" is legendary and historic. Why demote it?

[pepperbb]

11 minutes ago, Mr. Krabs said:

https://www.nbcsportschicago.com/nfl/chicago-bears/bears-news/chicago-bears-seemingly-change-primary-logo-to-the-bear-relegate-the-traditional-c/500431/

 

I must say this is a head scratcher from the Bears. The Wishbone "C" is legendary and historic. Why demote it?

I believe its primarily for publication use, websites, scorebugs etc. it is an historic logo, but its not like its been the primary for over 100 years or something. A bear logo has been used as a primary in years past before the C. I'm all for the change to the bear head because i personally think its a sick underused logo!

[Hat Boy]

On the TV broadcast, they often used an oversized logo framed in a small box and the Bears wishbone C is near unrecognizable as a logo (or a letter). I suppose the bear head solves some of that problem

 

 

[MCM0313]

37 minutes ago, Mr. Krabs said:

https://www.nbcsportschicago.com/nfl/chicago-bears/bears-news/chicago-bears-seemingly-change-primary-logo-to-the-bear-relegate-the-traditional-c/500431/

 

I must say this is a head scratcher from the Bears. The Wishbone "C" is legendary and historic. Why demote it?

Eh, “legendary and historic” may be overstating it a bit. The Cincinnati Reds have been using (essentially) the same C for a lot longer, and a team called Bears should have some bear iconography IMO. I wouldn’t want the C taken away altogether, nor would I want the bear logo on the helmet. I think this is a nice in-between. 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

29 minutes ago, MCM0313 said:

Eh, “legendary and historic” may be overstating it a bit. The Cincinnati Reds have been using (essentially) the same C for a lot longer, and a team called Bears should have some bear iconography IMO. I wouldn’t want the C taken away altogether, nor would I want the bear logo on the helmet. I think this is a nice in-between. 

 

It's not coming off the helmet. It's been there all through camp. 

 

[DCarp1231]

Count me in on wanting this to be the primary Bears helmet-