Untouchable NFL Uniforms

[andrewharrington]

well you may think a "traditional" uniform is boring, but the point is, is its simple, old as dirt, but still pleasing to look at. its timeless in a way. in the future, a team with a new, trendy, modern look like the bucs or seahawks will change, just as they both did a few years ago, because the look was not quite as timeless, though i did and still do like them both. in fifty years, the browns and bears etc. will still look good compared to the standards of the day.

[pcgd]

im sorry, but i just dont really agree with any of these, other than the packers.

philly- a bit of homerism goin'on. they do have nice unis, but the #s really bug me. the charcoal is too indistinguishable between the dark green and the black, so it all just blends together to make they look sloppy.

st louis - again, a good set, but not close to untouchable. theyve only had this current scheme for a few years, so tweaking is still possible

chargers- need to be stary away from the navy blue craze and go back to their powder blue roots.

MY untouchables: Oakland, GB, Chicago, NYG, Cleveland

exactly how I feel.

See, I don;t know why these are good uniforms. You can say whatever you want about them being classic and traditional, but in reality they're downright boring. The Browns have an orange jersey, with some white and brown striping. They dont even have a logo on the helmet (I don't know what they should put on, bu im just saying). The packers are green with yellow strpies and have a G inside an oval for the logo. The bears have brown jerseys and a C as the logo. The giants just have blue and gray unis with the logo of NY. I just don't understand what it is with old traditional stuff here, to me its just boring.

Its about identity. That's what these teams have. Take nike and adidas. The nike swoosh is easily identified. Nike would never change it. No matter if its the year 3030 there will still be a nike swoosh. On the otherhand, the flower thing adidas used to have wasn't a strong identity, therefore they changed it to the now strong three triangles logo.

The Bears and Packers have very strong identity. Both teams are easily identified by the famous C and G, their colors, and their uniforms. If you have successful brand identities, you don't mess with them.

Its not a retro thing to me. If its not broke, don't fix it.

[habsfannova]

im sorry, but i just dont really agree with any of these, other than the packers.

philly- a bit of homerism goin'on. they do have nice unis, but the #s really bug me. the charcoal is too indistinguishable between the dark green and the black, so it all just blends together to make they look sloppy.

st louis - again, a good set, but not close to untouchable. theyve only had this current scheme for a few years, so tweaking is still possible

chargers- need to be stary away from the navy blue craze and go back to their powder blue roots.

MY untouchables: Oakland, GB, Chicago, NYG, Cleveland

exactly how I feel.

See, I don;t know why these are good uniforms. You can say whatever you want about them being classic and traditional, but in reality they're downright boring. The Browns have an orange jersey, with some white and brown striping. They dont even have a logo on the helmet (I don't know what they should put on, bu im just saying). The packers are green with yellow strpies and have a G inside an oval for the logo. The bears have brown jerseys and a C as the logo. The giants just have blue and gray unis with the logo of NY. I just don't understand what it is with old traditional stuff here, to me its just boring.

Its about identity. That's what these teams have. Take nike and adidas. The nike swoosh is easily identified. Nike would never change it. No matter if its the year 3030 there will still be a nike swoosh. On the otherhand, the flower thing adidas used to have wasn't a strong identity, therefore they changed it to the now strong three triangles logo.

The Bears and Packers have very strong identity. Both teams are easily identified by the famous C and G, their colors, and their uniforms. If you have successful brand identities, you don't mess with them.

Its not a retro thing to me. If its not broke, don't fix it.

The Packers are probably the most succesful brand in sport for identification....anytime ANY American sees those colours, they think Green Bay.

[M59]

With each passing season, the NFL teeters nearer and nearer to the yawning chasm of horrors the NBA has fallen into...stylistic HELL! I dislike ALL of the uniforms mentioned in this column, save Green Bay's, and wouldn't be above tweaking THAT one!

The Titans?!? The TITANS?!? Those godawful rags on the TITANS?!?

Son, what kinda crack you smokin?

[PhilaLogos]

im sorry, but i just dont really agree with any of these, other than the packers.

philly- a bit of homerism goin'on. they do have nice unis, but the #s really bug me. the charcoal is too indistinguishable between the dark green and the black, so it all just blends together to make they look sloppy.

st louis - again, a good set, but not close to untouchable. theyve only had this current scheme for a few years, so tweaking is still possible

chargers- need to be stary away from the navy blue craze and go back to their powder blue roots.

MY untouchables: Oakland, GB, Chicago, NYG, Cleveland

exactly how I feel.

See, I don;t know why these are good uniforms. You can say whatever you want about them being classic and traditional, but in reality they're downright boring. The Browns have an orange jersey, with some white and brown striping. They dont even have a logo on the helmet (I don't know what they should put on, bu im just saying). The packers are green with yellow strpies and have a G inside an oval for the logo. The bears have brown jerseys and a C as the logo. The giants just have blue and gray unis with the logo of NY. I just don't understand what it is with old traditional stuff here, to me its just boring.

Its about identity. That's what these teams have. Take nike and adidas. The nike swoosh is easily identified. Nike would never change it. No matter if its the year 3030 there will still be a nike swoosh. On the otherhand, the flower thing adidas used to have wasn't a strong identity, therefore they changed it to the now strong three triangles logo.

The Bears and Packers have very strong identity. Both teams are easily identified by the famous C and G, their colors, and their uniforms. If you have successful brand identities, you don't mess with them.

Its not a retro thing to me. If its not broke, don't fix it.

So you'de rather see a recognizable logo and uniform over a cool logo and uniform?? That's what I don't understand.

[pcgd]

I'm saying they are cool! Do the Yankees have exciting uniforms? Are the birds on the bat exciting and interesting? Isn't having the exact same uniforms since for the last 50 years while every other team changes uniforms more than they win games unique and interesting?

There isn't a problem making new uniforms and logos. I just think most of the time teams ruin a good thing by updating when they already have a strong identity. Like I said, would you take the swoosh and change it to a circle? no...that'd be stupid.

[Mings]

i think the bears are priceless, they have a great uni, same with the cards believe it or not

[Jungle Jim]

I wouldn't have included the Titans in the article because they have perhaps the ugliest helmet in the league. A red or blue helmet with that "T" sword thing would be awesome. The non-symmetrical flaming ball thing is downright hideous, not to mention the white helmet it's stuck on.

[Discrim]

See, I don;t know why these are good uniforms. You can say whatever you want about them being classic and traditional, but in reality they're downright boring. The Browns have an orange jersey, with some white and brown striping. They dont even have a logo on the helmet (I don't know what they should put on, bu im just saying). The packers are green with yellow strpies and have a G inside an oval for the logo. The bears have navy jerseys and a C as the logo. The giants just have blue and gray unis with the logo of NY. I just don't understand what it is with old traditional stuff here, to me its just boring.

the allure of the traditional stuff is basically that, as said, they're easily recognizable and are sort of like fine wine-they get better with age. then again, some of the newer styles, you could say the same thing, like the Bucs, Titans and Broncos.

[PhilaLogos]

Ok, I'm starting to understand it a bit more.

pcdg- I see what ur saying about the identification thing. But that certainly doesn't make the uniforms untouchable. In addition to the plain logos, all of these teams have plain uniforms too. If they keep the colors, keep the logo, but change the uniform design, they'll still be recognizable. And I still don't see why the Browns are one of these teams because they don't have any identity at all.

[pcgd]

I see your point too. But I just think an established successful idenity (or lack there of) shouldn't be touched. I don't care for the eagles upgrade, (just the use of dark green and black together) but I do like the new logos and wings. I think they had a decent look, but it wasn't great. They took it to the next level. I just can't see that happening with the Bears for one. They have very vibrant colors, which were taken directly from the University of Illinois. And a great uniform design. That's why in my "update" I kept most of the same elements (3 stripes, GSH, C on the helmet, colors) I don't think mine is better though.

Anyway, like I said, I see your point and don't entirely disagree with you. But change for the sake of change is stupid. So is adding black for the hell of it. Which is kinda off topic but whatever. haha.

peace,

pc

[jkrdevil]

Ok, I'm starting to understand it a bit more.

pcdg- I see what ur saying about the identification thing. But that certainly doesn't make the uniforms untouchable. In addition to the plain logos, all of these teams have plain uniforms too. If they keep the colors, keep the logo, but change the uniform design, they'll still be recognizable. And I still don't see why the Browns are one of these teams because they don't have any identity at all.

The orange logoless helmet is thier identity. You see a orange football helmet without a logo I bet you think of the Cleveland Browns first.

I agree with pcqd, these teams with untouchable logo's and unis have built an brand with them.

[andrewharrington]

honestly, THE BROWNS HAVE NO IDENTITY!? are you yanking my chain? the browns came out in the 40s and instantly changed the leagues they joined. 4 straight AAFC titles, NFL champions their debut year in 1950, and also in 1954, 1955, and 1964. their first 13 years as a franchise, there were 12 playoff appearances. when they joined the NFL in 1950, they played in 7 of the next 8 title games. yep, thats 11 title games in a 12 year span, including those 6 championships. 6 championships in twelve years! in additon, they played in the title game again in 1964, 1966, 1968, and 1970, winning the 1964 crown. theyve had the best sequence of bruising runners the league has known. marion motley, jim brown, greg pruitt, bobby mitchell, leroy kelly, and so on. 15 members of the pro football hall of fame? no identity? i guess it depends on your definition, but thats a better rap sheet than about 90% of the NFL. that an identity i am PROUD of. orange and brown are colors that make me stand up and think cleveland browns, thats where I'M from, and im happy they can represent us in the world of football with such a great historical IDENTITY. nuff said. no offense to philalogos haha. but the browns have one of the best and most unique identities in all of sports.

[PhilaLogos]

I said identity, not a tradition of greatness. I never said that they weren't a great franchise or didn't have great running backs or whatever, I meant identity as in a certain symbol or logo to define them by. Just like the Bears' C or the Nike swoosh just as pc pointed out. When I hear orange and brown I don't think of cleveland, maybe it's because you're a fan (or at least know a lot about them). I'm just saying that they don't have a logo. I don't see how a team is untouchable with what is possibly the most boring uniform in sports. I dunno, I guess it's just my personality that I'd rather see my team walk out in a cool uniform than be able to say they are identifiable.

[IceCap]

I said identity, not a tradition of greatness. I never said that they weren't a great franchise or didn't have great running backs or whatever, I meant identity as in a certain symbol or logo to define them by. Just like the Bears' C or the Nike swoosh just as pc pointed out. When I hear orange and brown I don't think of cleveland, maybe it's because you're a fan (or at least know a lot about them). I'm just saying that they don't have a logo. I don't see how a team is untouchable with what is possibly the most boring uniform in sports. I dunno, I guess it's just my personality that I'd rather see my team walk out in a cool uniform than be able to say they are identifiable.

they have a logo. its the =B= logo. they just need to use it more. dont put it on the helmet, but put it in the endzones and at centre field. also, tell espn, abc, ect... to use the =B= logo when they need a graphic for the browns.

[PhilaLogos]

yeah, I actually wasn't even aware of that logo until I came here and so its obviuosley not identifiable.

[paynomind]

I am reading through this thread, and I'm feeling like there is an age difference here. If not age, at least a 'respect of tradition' gap.

I don't feel like any uniform anywhere is 'untouchable' as line thicknesses, colors, patterns, fabrics, cuts, etc will and should always change for the times, even if only slightly.

But, I agree with some of the lists put forth for teams that require 'gentle changes' rather than wholesale redesigns. Sports teams completely redesigning their logo is RARE and is a big deal! I think here, where we concentrate on even the smallest changes, in leagues at every level, in every nation, we forget how big of a thing it is for a city's team to chnage logos... or colors for that matter.

Above all, personal preference plays a HUGE part, and while we all enjoy each other's opinion, please be respectful the way you say it; YOU don't like the Titans uniforms... its not that they ARE horrible. It is an opinon. I love the Titans unis, you hate them, hooray. But there is no definative arbitor when somehting is bad. Hell, just because everyone i've ever heard comment on it hates the Ice Patrol logo doesn't mean it IS ugly, just that we all think that it is.

The article causes an interesting debate here on the boards, and for that I applaud you. However, I must agree that as an article on a website, it was severely lacking. If i read that, and didnt know i could come here and discuss it, I would have been disapointed.

[andrewharrington]

my bad philalogos. i see what youre saying but still. the colors alone make people think of the cleveland browns. theyre unique. maybe not as classic as some others, but in a different way they are becasue theyre so unique and they define the city and its franchise so well. thats why we kept them for our new browns when they came in 1999. in a way, those colors identify the browns so well that they dont really need a logo. i mean, if the browns were blue and gold, they would need a logo becasue so many famous teams have blue and gold variations as their colors, like the rams, notre dame, michigan, the chargers, etc. there fore they would need something else to identify them. reality is, not many teams use orange and brown for whatever reason, and i think thats why the browns look and ientity succeeds without a logo. those colors are, more or less, their identity, although i do really like the =B= logo and agree they should use it much more.

[PhilaLogos]

I think they should keep the colors, no doubt, it's an important part of their franchise. But i don't think there uniform is untouchable. They could still modernize it a bit by changing some of the striping and stuff while keeping the trademark colors.