Why did the NFL nix the 2 Helmets for Seattle

[hecticbro]

You should have put a comma after "but", you evil moron!!!

[tajmccall]

410th time i've said this on the boards...and im not trying to be an ass for someone asking the question, i'm just surprised that nobody else read it...it was in the Seattle newspaper in 02 or 03 when they changed...

They COULD have worn both, but you need a 3rd jersey to go with it...they didnt have one so they chose one...they left it up to the people of Seattle and they chose the 'GunMetal Blue.'

You must have a 3rd uniform to have a second helmet. It isnt brand recognition. Look at baseball...some teams have 3 or 4 hats. Its just an arbitrary rule.

So yes, the bears could technically have an orange helmet.

[Brendan]

because their the no fun league

Strike two for you.

(I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I live and die by spelling errors, so it's kind of a sticking point for me. Sorry.)

The dugout is to your left.

The correct word would be they're - the contraction for they are.

it okay i dont really care about people correcting my grammar, i know its bad. even today my teacher went over with me what the different meanings are for there. i just wish people wouldnt call me stupid, because i think its unfair for people to judge my intellegence by a message board. now back to seattles helmets.

[fonz]

because they're the no fun leauge

You got that right!

[Eye]

because they're the no fun leauge

You got that right!

Wow, that post added a lot of information that was vital to this topic. The silver helmet was a great looking helmet that stood the test of time, 1976-2001. It was clean, and sharp, however the new helmets are even better and they made the newer seahawk look bad-ass when they updated the logo. It looks like it's in motion while the other one seemed like it was just there... as if it were standing still. With that said though, the NFL should have let the Seahawks have two helmets IMO. What's the big deal. I think the current helmets are slightly better than the old ones, but they shouldn't have a problem with a team having two helmets. To the Seahawks, just put out a lime green alternate. We've all seen the fashion jerseys and the lime green on the bottom of the wide receiver's gloves in the Super Bowl. I thought it looked nice. If the Seahawks were to come out with an alternate, I think it should be a lime green alternate, or maybe just some slight alterations adding lime green here or there. What I would really like though, is if the Seahawks went with a throwback jersey. They could have two helmets then, if anybody would still like them to. The Seahawk would be big and wrap around the sleeve unlike the current Seahawk, which is small and goofy looking with the Reebok logo above it which is almost as big.

[Gothamite]

410th time i've said this on the boards...and im not trying to be an ass for someone asking the question, i'm just surprised that nobody else read it...it was in the Seattle newspaper in 02 or 03 when they changed...

They COULD have worn both, but you need a 3rd jersey to go with it...they didnt have one so they chose one...they left it up to the people of Seattle and they chose the 'GunMetal Blue.'

You must have a 3rd uniform to have a second helmet. It isnt brand recognition. Look at baseball...some teams have 3 or 4 hats. Its just an arbitrary rule.

So yes, the bears could technically have an orange helmet.

You wouldn't be able to support that interpretation of the rules, would you?

[leopard88]

And yes, the only exception is and has been a throwback, which makes the Redskins of a couple years back an extremely bad example to bring up.

Actually, the "Year of the Spear" uniform was not a true throwback, but was more an "inspired by" uniform. If it was a true throwback, NFL rules would have prohibited the Redskins from wearing it throughout the season.

All in all, I believe it is very good example of hypocrisy on the part of the NFL.

Only because you're looking for hypocrisy to justify your position. Objectively, the NFL has been very clear on this policy, and has consistently applied it, for decades.

If the rule is that you can have a different helmet with an alternate jersey, then I stand corrected. If, however, the rule is that the you can only have a different helmet with a throwback jersey, then I stand by my position. The "Year of the Spear" uniform is not a throwback.

[Gothamite]

If the rule is that you can have a different helmet with an alternate jersey, then I stand corrected. If, however, the rule is that the you can only have a different helmet with a throwback jersey, then I stand by my position. The "Year of the Spear" uniform is not a throwback.

Yes, it is. What makes you think that it isn't?

The NFL has always taken a "loose" interpretation of throwbacks, particularly when accounting for modern materials, cut and fit.

The Redskins uniform was an "inspired by" throwback, with modern technological innovations, and that is why they could wear the different helmet. An alternate jersey does not mean the team can wear an alternate helmet.

[puff]

Does anyone know why the NFL nixed the idea of home and away helmets for the Seahawks a few years back? It seem like a great marketing plan for a league that loves merchandise cash.

How many people do you know that buy helmets? I don't see the merchandising connection.

It's not the helmets themselves.

It's the t-shirts, toboggans, stickers that would feature the two different helmets, together and separately that would provide a marketting opportunity.

And there is a growing market for the mini helmet collectible and such.

puff

[leopard88]

If the rule is that you can have a different helmet with an alternate jersey, then I stand corrected. If, however, the rule is that the you can only have a different helmet with a throwback jersey, then I stand by my position. The "Year of the Spear" uniform is not a throwback.

Yes, it is. What makes you think that it isn't?

The NFL has always taken a "loose" interpretation of throwbacks, particularly when accounting for modern materials, cut and fit.

The Redskins uniform was an "inspired by" throwback, with modern technological innovations, and that is why they could wear the different helmet. An alternate jersey does not mean the team can wear an alternate helmet.

I will grant you that the interpretation is loose in terms of fit, materials, etc., but the spear uniform is the only one I can think of off hand that falls into the "inspired by" category (excluding the 75th Anniversary uniforms that used the wrong helmet colors, like the Bills and Jets). Others have failed to pick up all of the details, but no one else has, to my recollection, used an "inspired by" set.

If the NFL considers it a "throwback", that is the league's prerogative and, if so, then the rule is being applied consistently. In that case, then I disagree with the league's interpretation of a "throwback". To me it is either a true throwback (making allowances for materials, fit and the like) or it is not a throwback. Maybe that is where the disagreement lies.

[griffelh]

Only one helmet per team - check

Jersey must be tucked in - check

socks must match - check

no funny names on backs of jerseys - check

Coach may dress as homeless person, so long as he is wearing "official licensed merchandise" - check

[powersurge]

You should have put a comma after "but", you evil moron!!!

you said but...

huh huh huh huh

[bterreson]

If the rule is that you can have a different helmet with an alternate jersey, then I stand corrected. If, however, the rule is that the you can only have a different helmet with a throwback jersey, then I stand by my position. The "Year of the Spear" uniform is not a throwback.

Yes, it is. What makes you think that it isn't?

The NFL has always taken a "loose" interpretation of throwbacks, particularly when accounting for modern materials, cut and fit.

The Redskins uniform was an "inspired by" throwback, with modern technological innovations, and that is why they could wear the different helmet. An alternate jersey does not mean the team can wear an alternate helmet.

I will grant you that the interpretation is loose in terms of fit, materials, etc., but the spear uniform is the only one I can think of off hand that falls into the "inspired by" category (excluding the 75th Anniversary uniforms that used the wrong helmet colors, like the Bills and Jets). Others have failed to pick up all of the details, but no one else has, to my recollection, used an "inspired by" set.

If the NFL considers it a "throwback", that is the league's prerogative and, if so, then the rule is being applied consistently. In that case, then I disagree with the league's interpretation of a "throwback". To me it is either a true throwback (making allowances for materials, fit and the like) or it is not a throwback. Maybe that is where the disagreement lies.

Well wouldn't a silver seahawks helemt be "inspired by" the original? just saying.

[IceCap]

I will grant you that the interpretation is loose in terms of fit, materials, etc., but the spear uniform is the only one I can think of off hand that falls into the "inspired by" category (excluding the 75th Anniversary uniforms that used the wrong helmet colors, like the Bills and Jets). Others have failed to pick up all of the details, but no one else has, to my recollection, used an "inspired by" set.

The Dallas Cowboys' double-star jerseys.

To the NFL "inspired by a throwback" is a throwback, not an alternate jersey, seeing as the league mandates that all alternate jerseys simply be recoloured versions of regular jerseys. So yes, the spear uniforms were considered throwbacks by the league, and therefore the Redskins were allowed to wear a second helmet with them. The rule was applied constantly. Whether or not the NFL was correct to classify those uniforms as throwbacks in an entirely different debate all together.

[yh]

Only one helmet per team - check

Jersey must be tucked in - check

socks must match - check

no funny names on backs of jerseys - check

Coach may dress as homeless person, so long as he is wearing "official licensed merchandise" - check

Post of the Day.

Well done.

[hecticbro]

The Redskins used their two helmets seven or eight times each that season, though. No other team has ever truly had two full-time helmets in the NFL, to the best of my knowledge. The league lets them get away with it for two games or so, and it's made clear which helmet is the team's "official" helmet. For Washington that season, you couldn't single one or the other out.

As far as Seattle trying to push that silver helmet on people when they unveiled their new uniform, I think most of it had to do with a stubborn hesitance to move on all the way and truly do a full re-design. A lot of teams have botched re-designs lately because they were afraid to leave behind a logo, color, uniform element or whatever, out of fear that it would be too drastic.

I say if you're going to significantly change the look of the team, you have to follow through. The Bills look ridiculous now because they mixed old with new and it doesn't look right together. The Lions and Mets look bad because they just dumped a bunch of black into their old uniforms without even really changing anything or making room for the color.

And the Seahawks would have looked pretty crappy if they took the field with silver helmets when there's not any silver at all on their jerseys or pants.

[IceCap]

The Redskins used their two helmets seven or eight times each that season, though. No other team has ever truly had two full-time helmets in the NFL, to the best of my knowledge. The league lets them get away with it for two games or so, and it's made clear which helmet is the team's "official" helmet. For Washington that season, you couldn't single one or the other out.

The NFL made an exception for them that year, seeing as it was the team's 75th anniversary. They couldn't do that this year if they wanted to.

[leopard88]

The NFL made an exception for them that year, seeing as it was the team's 75th anniversary. They couldn't do that this year if they wanted to.

or

The rule was applied constantly.

So which would it be? "Exception" or "constantly"?

Every other throwback (whether authentic (more or less) or "inspired by") can only be worn 2 times per year, if I recall correctly. The Redskins wore the "Year of the Spear" uniform for most, if not all, of their home games. So even if we accept the premise that is a "throwback" by the league's definition, the league applied the rule regarding wearing throwbacks and/or alternate helmets in an inconsistent manner when it granted an exception to the Redskins.

[IceCap]

The NFL made an exception for them that year, seeing as it was the team's 75th anniversary. They couldn't do that this year if they wanted to.

or

The rule was applied constantly.

So which would it be? "Exception" or "constantly"?

Every other throwback (whether authentic (more or less) or "inspired by") can only be worn 2 times per year, if I recall correctly. The Redskins wore the "Year of the Spear" uniform for most, if not all, of their home games. So even if we accept the premise that is a "throwback" by the league's definition, the league applied the rule regarding wearing throwbacks and/or alternate helmets in an inconsistent manner when it granted an exception to the Redskins.

The league applied their rules regarding when a team could wear a second helmet constantly, in that they only let the Redskins wear a second helmet with a throwback.

The NFL made an exception as to the number of times the Redskins could wear a throwback, seeing as it was their 75th anniversary.

[leopard88]

The NFL made an exception for them that year, seeing as it was the team's 75th anniversary. They couldn't do that this year if they wanted to.

or

The rule was applied constantly.

So which would it be? "Exception" or "constantly"?

Every other throwback (whether authentic (more or less) or "inspired by") can only be worn 2 times per year, if I recall correctly. The Redskins wore the "Year of the Spear" uniform for most, if not all, of their home games. So even if we accept the premise that is a "throwback" by the league's definition, the league applied the rule regarding wearing throwbacks and/or alternate helmets in an inconsistent manner when it granted an exception to the Redskins.

The league applied their rules regarding when a team could wear a second helmet constantly, in that they only let the Redskins wear a second helmet with a throwback.

The NFL made an exception as to the number of times the Redskins could wear a throwback, seeing as it was their 75th anniversary.

Fair enough.

Now, Gothamite, will you at least acknowledge that there is inconsistency (call it an "exception" if you want) in the way the NFL handled the Year of the Spear situation?