2024 NFL Changes

[PurpleHayes]

49 minutes ago, ManillaToad said:

 

This continues to be the most half-assed uniform change ever. It's like they forgot they were even making a new set.

 

I think I found the problem, it's the Pats equipment manager:

 

 

 

[Delicate Genius]

The current Patriots do wear the dynasty-era pants at practice, so they're still around in the locker room. I guess that's what happened here with Zappe tonight even though the difference between the pants is obvious.

 

The transition from the previous uniforms to these has been amateur, though. The photoshoot for the unveiling in 2020  (and for a handful of games) had some players wearing the new jerseys with the old numbers and/or name bars; and, iirc, one of the Pats within the last couple years had the old Color Rush pants on for at least warmups of a regular season game.

[gothedistance]

5 hours ago, SSmith48 said:

The Color Rush trend ruined the general aesthetic tastes of today's football players. Monochrome looks from head to toe aren't going away anytime soon, especially when it comes to blackouts and whiteouts/icey whites ()

 

Speaking of the Broncos, orange pants will be making their debut this weekend in Green Bay. Would have preferred navy pants, but if this graphic is correct, there will be contrasting socks! However, this particular pants/jersey combo makes me think that white helmets were the original primary choice before the 3-helmet rule change. It's a small nitpick, but that orange collar stripe needs to be changed to navy to help balance the look out color-wise. All-in-all though, I think it's nice that Denver is able to open up their wardrobe options more with this new set, especially with the orange/navy color scheme.

 

 

 

I think the Broncos' new uniforms are growing on me. Even though they're all over the place. Denver and Cincinnati will join Cleveland in having orange pants.

 

By the way, the game with the Packers will be in Denver.

[cajunaggie08]

17 hours ago, ruttep said:

 

Color in the entire ing endzone

I hate that gap too, but I believe it is there because rather than swap endzone sections out they are able to wash the paint off to do different designs. By leaving a gap to the end zone line and out of bounds they wont wash away the white.

[TruColor]

Absolutely screaming for TV numbers:

 

 

(and contrasting socks)

[TrueYankee26]

3 minutes ago, TruColor said:

Absolutely screaming for TV numbers:

 

 

(and contrasting socks)

Stormtrooper Buckeye lookin uniforms

[YelichGraphics]

1 hour ago, cajunaggie08 said:

I hate that gap too, but I believe it is there because rather than swap endzone sections out they are able to wash the paint off to do different designs. By leaving a gap to the end zone line and out of bounds they wont wash away the white.

I believe it also helps with touchdown reviews. When the uniform of cleats of the team match the color of the end zone it can get washed in footage, so having that gap makes it easier to tell if they are in bounds and if that ball crossed the plane or not. Idk I'm playing devils advocate. I don't think it's the worst thing in the world. Out of all of the nitpicky things that's low on my list.

[Michael Bolton]

1 hour ago, TruColor said:

Absolutely screaming for TV numbers:

 

 

(and contrasting socks)

Looks like a junior college running out of their little tunnel in this photo.

[Silver_Star]

20 hours ago, PERRIN said:

If/when the Patriots change their uniforms, I’m praying they go with something along the lines of this. A middle ground between the royal blue flying Elvis shoulder set, the Brady-era set, and the current set. Something that feels natural but stays unique to only them. Nobody really owns the half-and-half stripe in the NFL.

 

The Washington Football Team (I dare not to call them Commanders as to me that name sounds like a name President Homestar Runner would enjoy; I rather them be the Washington Generals or Federals instead) used to have them, but never implemented them great on the new Reebok cuts and then later then Nike cuts.

[kestrel79]

Do we fully know the reason for the no TV numbers trend? I get it if the design leaves less room, but some of these new designs have the space available, they are just choosing not to put them on there when it is clearly needed.

 

I hope they aren't freeing up this space for eventual ads or something dumb, right?

[Silver_Star]

@PERRIN and here's the thing about the Reebok (2002-2010) and Nike (2011-current) cuts. To me, the NFL should have stuck to having teams have a different sports brand companies like they did in the early 1990's where the Bills, Jets, Bears, Saints, and Bengals had Champion, by 1995 when the Panthers, Lions, and Giants switched from Apex to Reebok since Apex went under by 1996 and where Dallas Cowboys switched to Nike in 1996. Starter had the Chargers, Raiders, Packers, Patriots switched from Apex to Starter in 1995, Vikings, Steelers all had Starter between 1993-1997. Wilson handled the Oilers, Seahawks, Chiefs, Colts, Buccaneers (switched from Russell Athletic to Wilson), and the Dolphins. The 49ers switched to Reebok in 1996 along with the Giants in 1995 and the Lions; the Lions and Giants left Apex just like the Patriots who left to have Starter do their uniforms). The Panthers became part of Reebok because in 1996, the Cowboys and Panthers were the last two teams to leave Apex. The Cowboys (switching from defunct Apex), Raiders (Raiders switched from Starter), Jaguars, and Broncos (switching from Wilson) switched to Nike in 1996. Russell dealt with the Eagles, Rams, Cardinals, Falcons, and Ravens by 1996 loaning from the Browns who were part of Russell Athletic years prior to 1996.

I used to like that because they settled on certain teams being from different sports brands and not one brand. The guy who took over Nike in Seattle in the 2000's reminds me of those lame late Gen X people who want to be cutting edge and cool because they listen to advises from the Vince Russos of the world.

[MCM0313]

38 minutes ago, Silver_Star said:

@PERRIN and here's the thing about the Reebok (2002-2010) and Nike (2011-current) cuts. To me, the NFL should have stuck to having teams have a different sports brand companies like they did in the early 1990's where the Bills, Jets, Bears, Saints, and Bengals had Champion, by 1995 when the Panthers, Lions, and Giants switched from Apex to Reebok since Apex went under by 1996 and where Dallas Cowboys switched to Nike in 1996. Starter had the Chargers, Raiders, Packers, Patriots switched from Apex to Starter in 1995, Vikings, Steelers all had Starter between 1993-1997. Wilson handled the Oilers, Seahawks, Chiefs, Colts, Buccaneers (switched from Russell Athletic to Wilson), and the Dolphins. The 49ers switched to Reebok in 1996 along with the Giants in 1995 and the Lions; the Lions and Giants left Apex just like the Patriots who left to have Starter do their uniforms). The Panthers became part of Reebok because in 1996, the Cowboys and Panthers were the last two teams to leave Apex. The Cowboys (switching from defunct Apex), Raiders (Raiders switched from Starter), Jaguars, and Broncos (switching from Wilson) switched to Nike in 1996. Russell dealt with the Eagles, Rams, Cardinals, Falcons, and Ravens by 1996 loaning from the Browns who were part of Russell Athletic years prior to 1996.

I used to like that because they settled on certain teams being from different sports brands and not one brand. The guy who took over Nike in Seattle in the 2000's reminds me of those lame late Gen X people who want to be cutting edge and cool because they listen to advises from the Vince Russos of the world.

Yeah, just having competition rather than a leaguewide contract makes for better designs too. 

[Silver_Star]

39 minutes ago, MCM0313 said:

Yeah, just having competition rather than a leaguewide contract makes for better designs too. 

 

Yes it does. I read through 1993-2000 and I saw the different ones. After 1997, Puma, Reebok, Nike, Adidas, etc.

[MrAstrodome]

Blame Goodell who wanted one of everything.

[DCarp1231]

[Sport]

As long as they stick to black socks with those pants it's a good look with any jersey. 

[Krona]

7 hours ago, TruColor said:

Absolutely screaming for TV numbers:

 

 

(and contrasting socks)

And Grey/Silver pants

[HOOVER]

8 hours ago, TruColor said:

Absolutely screaming for TV numbers:

 

 

(and contrasting socks)

 

These silly UA-size jersey numbers are also killing me on this set.  

Also, since the helmets are White, I"m okay with the socks being White.  Red socks would make the look bottom heavy, save for the players wearing Red sleeves and undershirts.

[SSmith48]

3 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

The Bengals might be one of the only teams I would be ok with trotting out in monochrome looks every week (with contrasting socks, of course). Those tiger stripes pop really well in all-orange.

[WSU151]

1 hour ago, HOOVER said:

 

These silly UA-size jersey numbers are also killing me on this set.  

Also, since the helmets are White, I"m okay with the socks being White.  Red socks would make the look bottom heavy, save for the players wearing Red sleeves and undershirts.

 

A white helmet with a white jersey and white pants and cardinals socks would probably not be bottom heavy