Jump to content

Packers Uniforms


number81

Recommended Posts

In 1984, new head coach Forrest Gregg absolutely butchered the classic Packers uniforms. The logo added to each sleeve, white numbers in green oval was added to pants, a gold stripe was added to pants, making the stripe combination green/white/gold/white/green, TV numbers were moved from sleeve to shoulder. On the team collar jerseys, a gold/green/white/green/gold striping was added to neckline and for the white jerseys, the stripes were changed to green/white/yellow/white/green, and the same pattern was added to the neckline. Here is a pic...

l_d31986f6533a8e08d358994cd4b492a6.jpg

Since then, the Packers have gotten rid of the most horrific of these updates - the logos on the sleeves and the numbers / bad striping on the pants - but there are still bad holdovers from this update - namely, the busy striping on collar of each jersey and the sleeve striping on the white jersey.

We got a chance to see how good the Packers could look, especially in white, during the last (unfortunately) of the Thanksgiving Classic throwback games in Detroit. Here is a side by side...

l_a0761771f439893310cb8e0bce2be69a.jpg

A team with this much tradition, who isn?t (nor shouldn?t) going to make a significant change to their identity, needs to rid themselves of the rest of these awful 1984 updates!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I agree. Although to be honest, it's pretty far down my list of problems with the NFL, in a world where the 49ers, Vikings, Cardinals, Bills, Bengals, Eagles, Rams, Seahawks, Lions, Falcons, Saints, Chargers, Dolphins and Redskins all wear inferior versions of past uniforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wanting the Packers to get rid of the neck stripes for years. Stupid, unnecessary addition to a classic uniform. And the throwback road sleeves are so much better.

I don't think anybody should be making changes to Lombardi's uniform. Change it altogther or leave it alone.

On the other hand, I still find myself wishing that Ron Wolf had pulled the trigger on his 1994 uniform change. That sets me apart somewhat from other Packer fans....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, the G logo on the sleeves only enhanced the uniform. It was hardly a radical change -- just a nice addition.

I was watching some old NFL Films from the 80s on the NFL Network last night, and I was just noticing how bad that G logo on the sleeve looked. It was redundant, just like the Niners' logo on the sleeve is now. Glad they dumped it, it just made the jersey too busy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was so revolted by the Packers' switch to 3-stripe sleeves in 1997 - when they switched over from Starter to Nike - that I refused to buy a jersey in that style. My only Packers jersey is a Starter Paul Hornung throwback I bought in January of '96. Bring back the full set of stripes on the sleeves. And a little striping on the socks wouldn't hurt, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember on WGN they had a sports cap show in the 80s and early 90s. They had corny murals in the background of each NFC Central team- and for Green Bay they had that packers jersey, but with yellow numbers and white outlining.

I remember even as a kid remarking to my dad about how ugly that was.

It'd be an impossible picture find, but i remember it vividly.

How would a bears channel like WGN screw up the packers jersey so obviously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree.

If the logo is to be added to the jersey, I would rather see it added to the chest, like the Jets and Steelers. At least it isn't in a visual line, from the helmet to the sleeve.

Now if only someone could convince the Panthers and Jagwhores that they don't need logos on their helmet, jersey, AND pants and we'd be making some progress!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wanting the Packers to get rid of the neck stripes for years. Stupid, unnecessary addition to a classic uniform. And the throwback road sleeves are so much better.

I don't think anybody should be making changes to Lombardi's uniform. Change it altogther or leave it alone.

On the other hand, I still find myself wishing that Ron Wolf had pulled the trigger on his 1994 uniform change. That sets me apart somewhat from other Packer fans....

I could not agree more with everything you said.

As far as Wolf not puling the trigger... the Lombardi era unis are distinctly different from the Lambeau era unis (at least the ones used for the '94 throwbacks... which are the ones most associated with Lambeau). So why shouldn't the Holmgren era unis have been different from the Lombardi's? The fans might have moaned about it for a couple years, but that would've ended after they won the Super Bowl in them. Now they're more-less stuck with what they have because they represent cross-generational glory years like the Yankees' or Celtics'.

Not that what they have now is terrible by any means, but they really do need to go back to the Lombardi-unis. Or at the VERY least wear black shoes. Ever since that trend began, I never understood why the Packers didn't jump on it when they had much more of a right to wear them than almost all the teams that made the switch. Hell, I'd even bring back the grey mask. If the Colts can go back to the Unitas era unis even though Unitas never played in Indy, then certainly the Packers can justify bringing back the Lombardi unis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for crying out loud, its basically the same uniform. So what if there are differences in stripe counts.

I find it ironic how the majority of those calling for the return to these "older" versions of the uniform are those that preach simplicity in uniform design, whereas the older Packers uniform is clearly more busy than the current Packers uniform.

but, the busier uniform is older! Therefore it must be brought back! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the Niners went back to the Montana-era look, but did so with only one white stripe on the sleeves and the socks, that would be better because it's basically the same uniform and not as busy.

Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the Niners went back to the Montana-era look, but did so with only one white stripe on the sleeves and the socks, that would be better because it's basically the same uniform and not as busy.

Right?

no it wouldn't because no version of the Montana-era look is better than what the Niners currently wear.

you're 0 for 2 today. just give up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Packers don't need to go back to the 1950 gray mask/striped sock look. The 49ers have a great update and they don't need to go back to the gray mask/khacki gold look either. Just because you did something xx years ago, doesn't mean you have to live in that cloud. It's what you do today and the technology is available for nicer, upgraded uniforms, so use it. I'm not saying you have to pipe it out to the max or go monochrome, but (for the most part) what teams wear today blow out their "glory day/classic" sets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and yet you keep failing to do so. Like I said, just give up. Or go on time out. Whichever suits you best.

what teams wear today blow out their "glory day/classic" sets.

and for no other team is this more true than the 49ers. As someone who grew up in the 80's watching Montana, Lott, Rice, and company tear up the league and win all those super bowls, I know for a fact that the uniforms were never really popular around here. The update that came in 96 was recieved well except for the white pants. When they went to the mettalic gold pants two years later though it was perfection.

All you have to do is look at the jersey sales. Do the 49ers sell a lot of throwbacks? Sure they do, but they are Montana, Lott, Young, Rice, Craig jerseys. There are Alex Smith, Frank Gore, and Vernon Davis throwbacks available too, but those ones do not sell very well. The current jerseys however, do sell well, especially Gore, which I havent seen in stores for a while now they are so hard to find.

The fact of the matter is, the fans are more attached to the teams that wore the old uniform and not so much the uniform itself.

the general consenous amongst the 49er Faithful is that in the glory days, the uniform wasn't worthy of the team, and at least for the past two to three years, the team wasn't worthy of the uniform.

perhaps this year, it will be the start of having a team worthy of the uniform and vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then would Montana, Lott, Young, Rice and Craig jerseys sell better in the current style? Do they even sell them that way?

It always bothers me to see player/jersey era mixups, but maybe that's just me.

As for the Packers, it does seem to be a minor difference. Not saying it's not important, especially to their fans, but the change would be less drastic than say, the Cowboys "fixing" their colors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then would Montana, Lott, Young, Rice and Craig jerseys sell better in the current style? Do they even sell them that way?

the Rice ones sold very well, as did the Steve Young ones. You all forget that those guys did wear the current uniform torwards the end of thier careers (or in Rice's case, the end of his Niners career)

Ive seen fans at the games even sport some custom made Montana, Craig, and Lott jerseys in the current style as well. So to answer the first half of your question, yes, I believe they would sell better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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