2024 NFL Changes

[burgundy]

12 minutes ago, HOOVER said:

I have a theory that custom number fonts are one way that the manufacturers tried  to deter bootleg jersey sales.  
 

Easy to get China jersey online for $25 with accurate numbers when it’s full block; harder when those bootleggers don’t have a custom number font file to copy.

 

That may have been the original intent, but it doesn't really work. Sure, bootleggers may not have the number font when the jerseys are first revealed, but once those jerseys are out in the world it's pretty damn easy to make a copycat font. It also doesn't work because people that buy counterfeit jerseys don't care if the number font is accurate, or even if the color and striping are accurate. I have seen some absolute abominations in Detroit, and the people wearing them don't care.

 

The main reason for CNFCNS(Custom Numbers For Custom Numbers Sake ^TM) is that it's just another way for the designer/manufacturer to experiment and put their stamp on teams. The Texans didn't need a new number font. Their outgoing numbers were already a clean, modern font with tasteful design elements that evoked the bull horns of the logo. It would have worked well with the new horn stripes. But they were a Reebok design, and Nike didn't want them on their jersey. So they designed a new font that looks like the old font is glitching out. It's still using the same ideas as the old font, but they shuffled elements around just to make it different.

 

[Silver_Star]

10 hours ago, Pigskin12 said:

This would've been a homerun. So unique and brilliant color balance, which is a foreign concept to Nike.

 

 

BETTER!!!

[Discrim]

5 hours ago, Ted Cunningham said:

Custom number fonts, especially of late, are an excellent encapsulation of "just because we can doesn't mean we should".

 

Since it used to be that suppliers (at least to a degree) dictated what number styles were available, there was more uniformity, at least in concept, among number sets. And differences in generally similar styles led to interesting (but tame) quirks and differences (like the "Champion" numbers essentially being "block" but with the curved 7, etc.). Because of certain teams sticking with styles over time, even after changing suppliers, we ended up with some teams with contextually unique numbers. (Two examples that stick out there are the Bears, and to a lesser degree, the Red Sox.) But somewhere around the mid-to-late 90s (I suppose starting with the Ravens, Eagles, and then Broncos), that changed. Those number sets were, at least, somewhat coherent in their designs though. Now, with numbers like the Texans, Dolphins, Seahawks, Titans, etc., it just seems like numbers are designed first and foremost to not look like other numbers, and then Nike et al back into some brand-speak, brand-related explanation for why they look like they do.

You forgot the Patriots

[CATLogo1]

On 3/19/2024 at 10:39 AM, PurpleHayes said:

 

When I made that post, I didn't think the unis would leak within 72 hours! That escalated quickly...

So is it March 23 or April 23 that the Houston Texans are scheduled to unveil their new uniform designs to the public?

[dont care]

4 hours ago, CATLogo1 said:

So is it March 23 or April 23 that the Houston Texans are scheduled to unveil their new uniform designs to the public?

April, I don’t know why this deserved a laughing reaction though…

[Ted Cunningham]

5 hours ago, Discrim said:

You forgot the Patriots

Ha. I was wondering if anyone would notice. I intentionally left them out because, while it was a unique look to the NFL, that set of numbers looked like they belonged in the NHL. (Probably because around that time the Lightning and Flames had both featured italicized numbers briefly, and the NHL was the only placed I'd seen italicized numbers. So that's how I classified that look in my head. In other words, the general style of that set of numbers didn't look entirely new to me, even if they were unique, unlike the Ravens, Eagles, et al. which felt like entirely new designs.)

[BBTV]

10 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

orry (not sorry) I've upset the Vet.

 

LOL what?  Try harder.

 

10 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Any time (almost) that someone claims that nobody uses them, or that nobody sees them in the stands, I'll point out that they are, in fact, used and seen.

 

I didn't say any of those things.

[DCarp1231]

Imagine looking for tiny numbers on a jersey when you can simply look at the giant numbers provided on the front and back of said jersey

[tBBP]

10 hours ago, burgundy said:

The main reason for CNFCNS(Custom Numbers For Custom Numbers Sake ^TM) is that it's just another way for the designer/manufacturer to experiment and put their stamp on teams. The Texans didn't need a new number font. Their outgoing numbers were already a clean, modern font with tasteful design elements that evoked the bull horns of the logo. It would have worked well with the new horn stripes. But they were a Reebok design, and Nike didn't want them on their jersey. So they designed a new font that looks like the old font is glitching out. It's still using the same ideas as the old font, but they shuffled elements around just to make it different.

 

 

Minor point of correction: those Texans numbers—along with the rest of the Texans brand identity, as well as the refreshed brand identities of the Atlanta Falcons, Cincinnati Bengals, and Seattle Seahawks circa '02—were actually the work of Mark Verlander. Those were the last independently-designed brand identities prior to the league-wide contract model, in this case by Reebok, for that 2002 season. 

 

8 hours ago, Discrim said:

You forgot the Patriots

 

Ah, yes...good ol' Apex One. (That is still my second-favorite major pro  sports uniform of all-time.) And to @Ted Cunningham's point...I hadn't thought about it, but I believe that was indeed the first instance of italicized jersey numbers in the NFL. Shoot—it may have been one of the first instances of italicized jersey numbers period...the only other ones I can think of right off the top of my head prior to those were the Tampa Bay Lightning circa '95 or '96, which is when those Patriots uniforms hit the field. (I half-remember an NBA All-Star uniform using italicized numbers, too...I think it was the Phoenix one.)

 

2 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

Imagine looking for tiny numbers on a jersey when you can simply look at the giant numbers provided on the front and back of said jersey

 

Except when you can't see the giant numbers provided on the front and back of said jersey...

 

 

 

 

...Or when they're partially obscured.

 

Not as big an issue when watching live because one can see the players before they get tackled or tied up, but the point remains...TV numbers would have helped in each of these instances. But they're also no longer a requirement, so it is what it is...

[Brave-Bird 08]

I personally don't think I have ever functionally felt like TV numbers were necessary. Usually my brain is looking towards the torso and just waiting for the player to position themselves in a way where I can finally see what number it is. However I am sure that also subconsciously my brain aggregates visuals from the TV numbers and the torso to piece together the number...idk...getting a bit too specific here. 

 

But the point I want to make is I've never consciously felt like TV numbers are necessary. Tracking player statistics from a press box was part of my day-to-day work for years, and many of the teams did not wear TV numbers (mostly high school teams), and it never made a difference to me. I can't imagine in the day of HD cameras and zoomed in, multi-camera angle productions that they are more necessary now. 

 

With all of that said, uniforms without TV numbers feel naked to me. They just add that extra piece of color and contrast. Use them whenever possible, but if they ever functionally get in the way of a greater design concept then I think they should never be considered necessary. In the Texans case, for example, it lets the horn breathe. In the Panthers case, there's literally no reason to try to squeeze them onto the shoulder like they have. The Rams "bone" jerseys that have an entire shoulder of room for numbers, yet they squeeze skewed numbers into an already busy sleeve cap-- I continue to be completely astonished that those went to production. 

 

But like, in the Chargers case, I kind of wish they had them because there's plenty of room. I know a lot of people really like their uniforms, but with the bolt on the sleeve cap and nothing on the shoulders they look kind of incomplete. 

[McCall]

I think the white Texans jersey NEEDS tv numbers on the shoulders. There's too much empty space. I don't think a logo would look good there, especially the primary, which would look very redundant against the logo on the helmet and the sleeve horns. They may not be necessary anymore, from a practical standpoint, but, in this case, tv numbers are necessary as the best option to fill overly-vacant jersey real estate.

[SFGiants58]

15 hours ago, The Impaler said:

Brady doubling down on the Broncos board with the white helmets and city connect for the Broncos.  What the hell does city connect have to do with white helmets?

 

So, how legit is this source?

[fouhy12]

As someone who frequently goes through All-22 film for both college and the NFL, the shoulder and/or helmet numbers are very helpful. Players spend a lot of their time either horizontal to the camera or on the ground surrounded by bodies. Unless a player has distinctive gear, it can be hard to make out a specific player. For line play especially, the more identifying markers a player has, the easier it is. 

 

I would much rather have shoulder numbers than a sleeve logo or something.

[shaydre1019]

Everyone here has valid thoughts re: TV numbers, 

but also sometimes you gotta know when it's time for them to go.
 

 

No one's reading these numbers from row 53.

[shaydre1019]

19 hours ago, MCM0313 said:

What examples have we ever even had? 1996-2008 49ers, or does metallic gold even count as dark? Cardinals’ black alt maybe?

 

Honestly I mean almost generally speaking a colored facemask doesn't look good on a dark/black helmet.

 

I think these would both look better with black facemasks.

[MCM0313]

10 minutes ago, shaydre1019 said:

 

Honestly I mean almost generally speaking a colored facemask doesn't look good on a dark/black helmet.

 

I think these would both look better with black facemasks.

Ooh, I really like that chrome gold facemask on the Colorado helmet. (Although I believe they got their uniforms right in the ‘90s and shouldn’t have changed much since then.)

[Dynasty]

2 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

So, how legit is this source?

 

I keep hearing the "white helmet" assertion being mentioned with the Broncos new uniforms and it's not just annoying, but I almost feel closer to believing it, even without actual clear evidence. Also, five changing uniforms?

[Carolingian Steamroller]

7 minutes ago, Dynasty said:

 

I keep hearing the "white helmet" assertion being mentioned with the Broncos new uniforms and it's not just annoying, but I almost feel closer to believing it, even without actual clear evidence. Also, five changing uniforms?

Packers finally going with metallic gold.

[damnyoutuesday]

45 minutes ago, shaydre1019 said:

 

Honestly I mean almost generally speaking a colored facemask doesn't look good on a dark/black helmet.

 

I think these would both look better with black facemasks.

It's a case-by-case for me. Depends on the rest of the uniform in both cases

[timjameskohler]

36 minutes ago, Dynasty said:

 

I keep hearing the "white helmet" assertion being mentioned with the Broncos new uniforms and it's not just annoying, but I almost feel closer to believing it, even without actual clear evidence. Also, five changing uniforms?

Unless an entire fifth organization has been able to keep a secret, there are only four teams getting new uniforms. That's why I don't trust this guy. I think his sources are straight up bad.

 

The Broncos looked to the fans for guidance on the new uniforms, and the fans preferred WHITE helmets OVER royal blue? I'm not buying it. I think the color scheme remains largely the same with a 68-96 throwback. 
 

This white helmet nonsense is this year's Cardinals getting a maroon and orange makeover. If it ends up being true, I'll be shocked (and bummed out).