Jump to content

San Diego Charger Uni changes?


webby17

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 472
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Overall a good update IMO. I have to give them props for trying to keep a consistent feel to the uniform. The things I would like to see is them to remove the "Chargers" wordmark on the helmet, make the number bigger on the back and in the same font as the throwback helmet numbers, and outline the bolt in white on the road jerseys. I'm not too crazy about the numbers either but I think those will grow on me.

The navy set is awesome, the powder blues are good and the whites are a distant third. I agree with those who suggest we ditch the blue pants and wear all white on the road, I think that would be a major improvement with the road unis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I'm in the minority, but overall I see this as a downgrade. The powder blue trim against the yellow bolt just isn't aesthetically pleasing. I think the bolt should have been white, then trimmed in powder blue and then yellow.

And although I've always been a fan of the Navy (one of the first teams to get it right), the best of the new set is the powder blue jersey combo.

I agree. this is a total downgrade overall. Those shoulder stripes are flat out stupid looking. The only "upgrade" I see is the white helmet. That would have looked great with the old set. My favorite part of the powder blues was always the helmet. The rest of this "upgrade" is just typical "modernization" bull :censored:, i.e. uglier than hell.

There's a reason blue pinstriped suits never go out of style and leisure suits are laughed at today. Just look at the "updated" NFL uniforms vs. the classics. Tell me the Falcons will still be wearing those abominations they call uniforms 10 years from now or the Vikings or the Bengals. Today's "updates" are tomorrow's clown suits. Welcome to the the NFL's modern day version of MLB in the 70's and 80's.

Make it a minority of three. Don't like the overall look and agree it's a downgrade. The bolts are goofy looking except on the helmet, the powder blue in the home and roads doesn't work, the number font is off a display panel on the starship Enterprise, and they've cluttered the back of the helmet to match the cluttered shoulder on the jersey. Thumbs down.

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I'm in the minority, but overall I see this as a downgrade. The powder blue trim against the yellow bolt just isn't aesthetically pleasing. I think the bolt should have been white, then trimmed in powder blue and then yellow.

And although I've always been a fan of the Navy (one of the first teams to get it right), the best of the new set is the powder blue jersey combo.

I agree. this is a total downgrade overall. Those shoulder stripes are flat out stupid looking. The only "upgrade" I see is the white helmet. That would have looked great with the old set. My favorite part of the powder blues was always the helmet. The rest of this "upgrade" is just typical "modernization" bull :censored:, i.e. uglier than hell.

There's a reason blue pinstriped suits never go out of style and leisure suits are laughed at today. Just look at the "updated" NFL uniforms vs. the classics. Tell me the Falcons will still be wearing those abominations they call uniforms 10 years from now or the Vikings or the Bengals. Today's "updates" are tomorrow's clown suits. Welcome to the the NFL's modern day version of MLB in the 70's and 80's.

Make it a minority of three. Don't like the overall look and agree it's a downgrade. The bolts are goofy looking except on the helmet, the powder blue in the home and roads doesn't work, the number font is off a display panel on the starship Enterprise, and they've cluttered the back of the helmet to match the cluttered shoulder on the jersey. Thumbs down.

Four. I was in several pages ago saying this was a step backwards. How it's come to pass that NFL teams feel their uniforms will not be recognized unless they have

1) their own custom number font

2) the team name at the collar

3) the team logo either on the sleeve, shoulders, or back

is beyond me.

Another poster brought this up, and I agree completely: this isn't about how the uniforms are going to look on the players, it's about how they're going to look on the knuckleheads who are wearing them (five sizes too large for them) on the street.

And that's a shame...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even after looking at them for a while I still like them. It is getting harder and harder to keep the traditional shoulder stripes on modern cut jerseys. The Chargers haven't been able to go to the tighter cut jerseys and keep the traditional shoulder stripes. It could have been worse - look what the Colts did in truncating the stripes to fit in the modern cut. I guess I'm just resigned to the fact that designers have to fit things into this tempate.

The Chargers had white around the shoulder bolt on their jerseys from 1960-1987, and except for a year before I was born (1960) and one I don't remember (1966), they always had a yellow bolt. I was in my 20s when they changed to the outgoing set without the white trim and with the white bolt, so it's a return to what I grew up with. It took me years to get used to the outgoing set having white numbers, bolts, and no white trim on the shoulders. It looked far too plain to me. Actually, the first year (1988) of the outgoing they only wore white pants with fairly lame stripes - compared to 1987, 1988 was a "major downgrade". Even adding navy pants in 1990 wasn't that great. This set didn't come together until they put the bolt back on the pants in 1991.

I'll agree that the powder blue trim on the navy sets doesn't look that great. The curved pants stripe was not needed. The bolt itself is too cartoonish. The white stripe on the navy pants looks wider than the blue stripes on either set of white pants. I didn't like the collar on the Vikings uniforms, and I don't like it any better here.

I'll go one further on the helmet wordmark and say that helmet wordmarks look stupid on Schutt and Adams helmets; they are only good for filling the white plastic rear snubber on a Riddell helmet. The Chargers had the good sense to leave the wordmark off the Schutt and Adams helmets in the last generation, why put them on now.

Maybe it's just that after the Bengals, Cardinals and Vikings this isn't so bad. It's not as good as the old styles, but it isn't as bad as it could have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Four. I was in several pages ago saying this was a step backwards. How it's come to pass that NFL teams feel their uniforms will not be recognized unless they have

1) their own custom number font

2) the team name at the collar

3) the team logo either on the sleeve, shoulders, or back

is beyond me.

Those are relatively minor quibbles (although I share each and every one of them).

Eliminate those elements, and I think it's a pretty sharp uniform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to remember somebody doing a concept very similar to this. Anyone remember who did that?

to answer this 17 pages later, I believe the person who did that concept was everyone who's ever done a chargers concept on this board ever before. I guess I like them, but that's what they look like, a cccslc concept, and you've seen some of the concepts people do here. I guess it's just so obvious of a change that I'm not surprised or anything, just meh. I'll miss the old uniforms.

PvO6ZWJ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Four. I was in several pages ago saying this was a step backwards. How it's come to pass that NFL teams feel their uniforms will not be recognized unless they have

1) their own custom number font

2) the team name at the collar

3) the team logo either on the sleeve, shoulders, or back

is beyond me.

Those are relatively minor quibbles (although I share each and every one of them).

Eliminate those elements, and I think it's a pretty sharp uniform.

:therock: Eliminate those elements and its a blue shirt..........

spacer.png

On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said:
She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all. I'm not suggesting no numbers at all, nor am I advocating that they do away with the shoulder bolts or TV numbers.

I just dislike any element obviously intended for merchandise (wordmark on the front), and these particular custom numbers look droopy and goofy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here's what all the numbers look like, graphically:

ChargersNumbers.gif

The brace across the 8 is a lot higher than it is in the photo of the player #81 and the 8's on the merchandise pages.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

champssig2.png
Follow me on Twitter if you care: @Animal_Clans.

My opinion may or may not be the same as yours. The choice is up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here's what all the numbers look like, graphically:

ChargersNumbers.gif

The brace across the 8 is a lot higher than it is in the photo of the player #81 and the 8's on the merchandise pages.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

Thanks for catching that, if you refresh, it's been fixed.

And I must say, I really don't like this new look. It's just 'meh' to me really. The previous look was much better, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not to nit pick, but i am going to miss the blue pants, I am not sold with the bolt in the white stripe. i thought the current blue pants were unique.

All this just to get some powder blue into the uniform? Its not like they are the only team in the NFL with powder blue? To see how it has been done right, see the Titans uniforms.

You can't be serious. The Titans, if anything, showed you how NOT to use powder blue effetively. Or maybe it's just their design. Either way, they're ugly. The Chargers update, like I've said before, is already nice, and great because they avoided the gray facemask craze.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.