BUFFALO BILLS 2006

[ASU]

Any word if they are going back to the throwbacks full time? Sounds like there GM is out the door. If that is the case so should those horrible uniforms of his era (2002-2005).

[xnylived]

I'm no Bills fan, although I do dig the throwbacks, but if I were the last thing I would want the team to worry about is the uniforms.

[hawk36]

I think it would be a no brainer to switch. The new unis are horrible and have brought them nothing but losing seasons. I'm hoping they do a Jets and go back to the throwbacks, standing red buffalo and all.

[hormone]

I like the throwbacks better than the unis except I hate the throwback helmet logo and gray mask. I prefer the Jim Kelly era unis.

[ASU]

How about the throwback uniforms with the current helmet?

[Cujo]

I'm really hoping the Bills go back to something like this: My Buffalo Bills Concept (shameless plug )

[hawk36]

Never liked the motion stripe over the buffalo. Doesn't need it and just makes the logo cluttered.

[Gothamite]

To me, that stripe always looked like a shot from some pioneer's gun, felling the mighty buffalo....

[Artmanc3po]

I like the Joe Ferguson era unis, myself.

[DGivens87]

I wouldn't care if they wore fluffin leather helmets, just get rid of the current uni set already. I went to my eye doctor last week, and he told me that my vision has worsened since 2002 (last time I went), and I blame it partially on the Bills monstrosities.

[Chazberg]

I would think a change to the throwbacks would be a no-brainer, given their years of futility in the current set and the fan support of the throwbacks (not to mention their ass kickingness).

[hawk36]

Exactly. Current set is pure losers. Set before that was, unfortunately, losers too in that they lost 4 Super Bowls. Throwbacks won a Championship, go with those.

[ASU]

I love the Joe Cribbs era uniforms

[iconoclast]

Exactly. Current set is pure losers. Set before that was, unfortunately, losers too in that they lost 4 Super Bowls. Throwbacks won a Championship, go with those.

Repeat after me: "Uniforms don't win games, players do." Why do people continue basing uniforms decisions on teams' won-loss records? Isn't this forum supposed to critique uniforms based on what looks good? Having said that, Bills should go back to 1980 Fergy unis.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Marv Levy is back (why? I don't know either), and something tells me the Bills won't be trotting out navy anymore. Just a hunch.

[hawk36]

Exactly. Current set is pure losers. Set before that was, unfortunately, losers too in that they lost 4 Super Bowls. Throwbacks won a Championship, go with those.

Repeat after me: "Uniforms don't win games, players do." Why do people continue basing uniforms decisions on teams' won-loss records? Isn't this forum supposed to critique uniforms based on what looks good? Having said that, Bills should go back to 1980 Fergy unis.

Uniforms carry with them the identity of winning or losing depending on how the team plays in them. It's been very true that when a team gets a well designed uniform (Bills and Lions don't apply here), and/or a new stadium, the teams produce better results.

In much the same way that a person going in for an interview will perform better wearing a suit as compared to ratty jeans and a tshirt. Sure they look better, but because of that they also feel better and perform better due to that mentallity.

It's just a common sense fact.

[TruColor]

IMO, the Bills need to start over. Completely. All-new stuff. None of this retro/throwback clipart helmet logo with inconsistant, busy striping either. And no, I don't like the overly cluttered mess they currently use either.

My 2¢.

[pcgd]

Exactly. Current set is pure losers. Set before that was, unfortunately, losers too in that they lost 4 Super Bowls. Throwbacks won a Championship, go with those.

Repeat after me: "Uniforms don't win games, players do." Why do people continue basing uniforms decisions on teams' won-loss records? Isn't this forum supposed to critique uniforms based on what looks good? Having said that, Bills should go back to 1980 Fergy unis.

Uniforms carry with them the identity of winning or losing depending on how the team plays in them. It's been very true that when a team gets a well designed uniform (Bills and Lions don't apply here), and/or a new stadium, the teams produce better results.

In much the same way that a person going in for an interview will perform better wearing a suit as compared to ratty jeans and a tshirt. Sure they look better, but because of that they also feel better and perform better due to that mentallity.

It's just a common sense fact.

Ummmmm.....no.

The reason someone in a suit does better is because there is a person making a decision if you are hired or not. That person is looking for someone in a suit. So if you wear ratty jeans, they won't hire you.

If your theory was true, the Bengals wouldn't have won a single game. The Uniform thing is an excuse when teams lose.

[leopard88]

Exactly. Current set is pure losers. Set before that was, unfortunately, losers too in that they lost 4 Super Bowls. Throwbacks won a Championship, go with those.

Repeat after me: "Uniforms don't win games, players do." Why do people continue basing uniforms decisions on teams' won-loss records? Isn't this forum supposed to critique uniforms based on what looks good? Having said that, Bills should go back to 1980 Fergy unis.

Uniforms carry with them the identity of winning or losing depending on how the team plays in them. It's been very true that when a team gets a well designed uniform (Bills and Lions don't apply here), and/or a new stadium, the teams produce better results.

In much the same way that a person going in for an interview will perform better wearing a suit as compared to ratty jeans and a tshirt. Sure they look better, but because of that they also feel better and perform better due to that mentallity.

It's just a common sense fact.

It also has to do with the associations made by the fans (maybe more so). Fans like to be reminded of better days when their teams struggle. If a uniform or logo carries that association, it is quite logical for a team to want to return to that symbol when times are bad. This point was made very eloquently in one of the myriad threads on this board about the Brewers' retro Sunday ball-in-glove uniforms, which harken back to the days when the Brewers were an American League power.

In Buffalo's case, the current uniforms are generally reviled and are largely associated with bad football. If the team can remind everyone of the successes of the early '90s by resurrecting those uniforms, it makes good business sense to do so. The Joe Cribbs/Joe Ferguson/O.J. Simpson (let's not forget him, because there is some overlap) uniforms may be preferable from an aesthetic standpoint (debatable), but they do not quite carry the same positive association. The Bills were decent then, but they never sniffed an AFC Championship Game, let alone a Super Bowl.

The counter to this is the Bucs' creamsicle uniform and the Bucco Bruce logo. There are many on this board who pine for that look. You will probably not see it any time soon, however, because Malcolm Glazer associates the look (as do many fans) with the team's many years of putridity. The "Pirates of Pewter Pants" look, on the other hand, has been mostly associated with success, so the orange fans will have to make do with the thin outline around the numbers on the new set.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

As a Bills fan, I don't know what they should do. Changing uniforms after the 2001 wasn't a bad idea on its face. Considering the state of the NFL at that time, with many teams changing their uniforms, it made good business sense to update their look. However, they just did a bad job of it.

So do they go throwback like the 1998 Jets or 2000 Giants? That worked for those teams, almost immediately. Or do they make a radical change -- more radical than their current look -- like the Falcons or Broncos? I don't know. Buffalo doesn't seem like that "type" of team.

I think going back to the early 90s look is a mistake, but that's me. They really probably should have changed, at least then they would have kept in the same class as the Bears, Packers, and Vikings. As it is, they look silly all around -- and they STILL don't have an offensive line!