2024 NFL Changes

[MCM0313]

4 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

I'd say the trend has been more about a move to minimalism than tradition. Teams decided things like pant stripes, tv numbers, and clashing socks/pants are too much of a distraction from a "clean" look.

 

Sure, we've gotten teams like the Browns, Bucs, and Jets who've essentially brought back throwbacks as their primaries, but a lot of the other rebrands of the past decade have been stripped down, minimalist looks (Jags, Cardinals, Falcons, Bengals, Dolphins).

What annoys me is when contrasting socks and pant stripes wouldn’t clutter the look at all but they still forgo one or both. Carolinia’s all-black with blue socks, or all white with either blue or black socks - those are both quite clean. Ditto Colts with white-white-white and blue socks. The Saints’ black pants wouldn’t be too busy with stripes. Nor would Baltimore’s. Yet…here we are. 

[The_Admiral]

1 hour ago, DCarp1231 said:

I noticed yesterday that Dan Quinn brought his “no captain patches” stance to Washington.

Finally, one good thing about that uniform set.

[MJD7]

12 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

I'd say the trend has been more about a move to minimalism than tradition. Teams decided things like pant stripes, tv numbers, and clashing socks/pants are too much of a distraction from a "clean" look.

 

Sure, we've gotten teams like the Browns, Bucs, and Jets who've essentially brought back throwbacks as their primaries, but a lot of the other rebrands of the past decade have been stripped down, minimalist looks (Jags, Cardinals, Falcons, Bengals, Dolphins).

That has also definitely happened concurrently, & they’re almost synonymous, in a way. Whether you call it “minimalist” or “traditional,” much of it has been a reaction to the maximalist, storytelling designs of the 2010’s.

 

The Falcons, Bengals, & Dolphins I’d put more in the “modern classic” category, along with the Vikings & Chargers. You can call them minimalist, sure, but I wouldn’t say it’s to their detriment (except maybe the Dolphins). The Dolphins’ initial redesign was in 2013, anyway, with a slight clean-up in 2018, so I’m not sure I’d put them as part of the 2020’s trends one way or the other.

 

With the Jaguars, I’d agree with you that their set is more-so minimalist, but much of the talk leading up to it was a Tom Coughlin-led return to tradition. Block, single-color numbers, a glossy helmet, and simpler striping are all relatively traditional elements, in the grand scheme of things. 
 

I’d put the Cardinals in the “traditional” camp overall, using a straightforward striping pattern & block numbers, albeit with some subtle flairs. If the criteria for “traditional” is to simply go back to an earlier uniform, completely unchanged, then even the Browns, Bucs, Jets, & Lions wouldn’t technically fit the requirements. Every redesign is going to have something new about it.

 

This is all before even considering the countless college teams, such as Baylor, Cal, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Minnesota, Purdue (I could keep going…) who have returned to traditional striping patterns & combos following more personalized and unique designs.

[gosioux76]

23 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

Sure, we've gotten teams like the Browns, Bucs, and Jets who've essentially brought back throwbacks as their primaries, but a lot of the other rebrands of the past decade have been stripped down, minimalist looks (Jags, Cardinals, Falcons, Bengals, Dolphins).

 

I was watching Cardinals-Bills this weekend and thinking about this very point. I remember a general tone of dissatisfaction on here about the Cardinals redesign, but as I watched them in the all-white look I couldn't help but think this is exactly the way that franchise should look. 

 

I'm sure I'll feel differently when they're in monochrome red, but in this case I was pleased to come away with a different feeling from what I got from the conversation here. 

[Echo]

36 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I was watching Cardinals-Bills this weekend and thinking about this very point. I remember a general tone of dissatisfaction on here about the Cardinals redesign, but as I watched them in the all-white look I couldn't help but think this is exactly the way that franchise should look. 

 

I'm sure I'll feel differently when they're in monochrome red, but in this case I was pleased to come away with a different feeling from what I got from the conversation here. 

I seem to remember most of the ire being directed towards the mono-red set, with the unnecessarily large wordmark and the BFBS alternate.  The main dig on the white set was that it looked too much like Ohio State. 

[CreamSoda]

This is all Detroit needs to do... if they really want to wear blue pants at home:

 

 

No stripe:

 

 

White/silver/white stripe:

[The_Admiral]

I assume getting rid of stripes on pants and socks has to do with small-screen viewing: stripes at that size must just get noisy. I wouldn't know, I only watch football on a big screen like a real American.

[PlayGloria]

1 hour ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I was watching Cardinals-Bills this weekend and thinking about this very point. I remember a general tone of dissatisfaction on here about the Cardinals redesign, but as I watched them in the all-white look I couldn't help but think this is exactly the way that franchise should look. 

 

I'm sure I'll feel differently when they're in monochrome red, but in this case I was pleased to come away with a different feeling from what I got from the conversation here. 

 

I love the cardinals white set. I've said this on here before, but if they just throw the red pants away and wear the white pants on both home and road, they would look great. (Of course the BFBS set needs to go too but that's another topic)

[WSU151]

4 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

This is all Detroit needs to do... if they really want to wear blue pants at home:

 

 

No stripe:

 

 

White/silver/white stripe:

 

A pants stripe that doesn't match the helmet or the jersey?

 

They'd probably put the jersey stripes on the pants if anything, no?

[WBeltz]

47 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

A pants stripe that doesn't match the helmet or the jersey?

 

They'd probably the the jersey stripes on the pants if anything, no?

Previous set did that. 

[Silver_Star]

3 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

This is all Detroit needs to do... if they really want to wear blue pants at home:

 

 

No stripe:

 

 

White/silver/white stripe:

 

But your stripe doesn't match the helmet and jersey stripes.

[Brave-Bird 08]

2 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

A pants stripe that doesn't match the helmet or the jersey?

 

They'd probably the the jersey stripes on the pants if anything, no?

 

Ugh, I hate this stance. That stripe looks amazing. It's complementary in the sense it's the same line width and sequence as in another part of the uniform, whether it's entirely identical or a piece of it. It's exactly the same as how the Packers used to have a wider sleeve stripe and then pulled the simpler pant stripe from that. Same with the Bears. 

 

In fact, feeling a need to have all striping be the same on helmets, jerseys, pants erases creativity and can make uniforms pretty clunky. 

 

 

[Ben5]

1 minute ago, Brave-Bird 08 said:

 

Ugh, I hate this stance. That stripe looks amazing. It's complementary in the sense it's the same line width and sequence as in another part of the uniform, whether it's entirely identical or a piece of it. It's exactly the same as how the Packers used to have a wider sleeve stripe and then pulled the simpler pant stripe from that. Same with the Bears. 

 

In fact, feeling a need to have all striping be the same on helmets, jerseys, pants erases creativity and can make uniforms pretty clunky. 

 

 

 

But it's not though. The white stripe is thicker on the pants than on the jersey and helmet.

 

I get what you are saying: the stripes don't have to match in every instance on the uniform. But, in this case, where the helmet stripe and the sleeve stripes match, then the pants should too.

 

A more complicated sleeve stripe shouldn't be copy and pasted everywhere. But if it works on the helmet, it can work on the pants.

[YelichGraphics]

2 minutes ago, Brave-Bird 08 said:

 

Ugh, I hate this stance. That stripe looks amazing. It's complementary in the sense it's the same line width and sequence as in another part of the uniform, whether it's entirely identical or a piece of it. It's exactly the same as how the Packers used to have a wider sleeve stripe and then pulled the simpler pant stripe from that. Same with the Bears. 

 

In fact, feeling a need to have all striping be the same on helmets, jerseys, pants erases creativity and can make uniforms pretty clunky. 

 

 

Agreed, Imagine the Steelers' or Miami's throwbacks matched their helmet pants and jersey stripes. That is kind of where I place the Lions new stripe. There can be consistency with line weight without it having to be exactly the same stripe across the board.

[WSU151]

19 minutes ago, YelichGraphics said:

Agreed, Imagine the Steelers' or Miami's throwbacks matched their helmet pants and jersey stripes. That is kind of where I place the Lions new stripe. There can be consistency with line weight without it having to be exactly the same stripe across the board.

 

The Steelers' pant stripe essentially matches the helmet stripe.  And if the Dolphins throwbacks had split pants stripes...they'd look like their 80s unis or 94 set

 

 

 

The Lions with a pants stripe that doesn't match anything (and for no good reason such as nostalgic charm or something) would be a miss.  A white/silver/white stripe just feels like it's a pair of pants from a different set of uniforms. If anything make it silver/white/silver. 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

Something to keep in mind.

Helmet, jersey, and pant stripes are different mediums using different materials.

It's been a long time since I've put on a pair of football pants but, by all appearances, the materials used on them are different from those used on the jerseys. Indeed, for a long time the socks (or more specifically stirrups) were closer in material (woven durene) to the jerseys than the pants.

Having a consistent helmet/jersey/pant stripe was never a necessity since the same stripe could look wildly different depending on what material/medium it was placed. This was especially true of the helmet stripe which was limited by the raised center ridge on most helmets in the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

The desire for everything to line up is more of a modern invention fueled in part by pant and jersey fabrics looking closer to each other and part by the epiphany everyone had around age 12 when watching the University of Florida.

Regarding the Lions. The helmet, jersey, and pant stripes do not have to match. They don't have to be the same pattern or similar widths, this isn't a hard and fast rule. What I would point out is that on some level, the Lions value them matching up because they specifically designed the primary home uniform that way.

[WSU151]

28 minutes ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

Something to keep in mind.

Helmet, jersey, and pant stripes are different mediums using different materials.

It's been a long time since I've put on a pair of football pants but, by all appearances, the materials used on them are different from those used on the jerseys. Indeed, for a long time the socks (or more specifically stirrups) were closer in material (woven durene) to the jerseys than the pants.

Having a consistent helmet/jersey/pant stripe was never a necessity since the same stripe could look wildly different depending on what material/medium it was placed. This was especially true of the helmet stripe which was limited by the raised center ridge on most helmets in the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

The desire for everything to line up is more of a modern invention fueled in part by pant and jersey fabrics looking closer to each other and part by the epiphany everyone had around age 12 when watching the University of Florida.

Regarding the Lions. The helmet, jersey, and pant stripes do not have to match. They don't have to be the same pattern or similar widths, this isn't a hard and fast rule. What I would point out is that on some level, the Lions value them matching up because they specifically designed the primary home uniform that way.

 

The Lions have a long history of matching their pants stripes to the helmet though. 

 

White/blue/white stripes on these pants would be "complementary" to the uni but would still look like piss compared to the blue/white/blue stripes that match the helmet

 

[BandaBassotti]

6 hours ago, CreamSoda said:

This is all Detroit needs to do... if they really want to wear blue pants at home:

 

 

No stripe:

 

 

White/silver/white stripe:

 

night and day

[HopewellJones]

Socks and stripes make all the difference. 

 

I Just. Don't. Understand the popularity of wearing stripeless pants and socks of the same color. It looks so friggin goofy. I'd be gushing over the Lions upgrade if they only had silver pants. I'd even be cool with the silly black alternate. But the blueberry look is so bad, and I just can't understand what the kids see in it. 

 

Monochrome is definitely not a dealbreaker for me. I think it works great in many instances. But I think the only time same-color, stripeless socks and pants can work is when it's black or white (Ravens alts, Longhorns away, etc). Maybe a dark navy. I'm rambling but yeah, that Lions shade of blue being literally the only thing present below the numbers...not a good look at all.

[HopewellJones]

But hey just one more time for the people in the back - A 2024 NIKE NFL NON-THROWBACK UNIFORM HAS STANDARD BLOCK NUMBERS. Great job on that front, Lions.