Now That Matt Millen Is Gone

[quantum]

BLACK:

Redskins

NO.

Absolutely, positively not. Burgundy (OK, cherry red), gold (OK, yellow) and white. That's it.

The fact that the Indian's hair in the helmet logo is black does not make it an official team color.

Do you consider blue and red to be Steelers colors just because they're in the helmet logo?

You shouldn't. It's a lot simpler than that.

Officially, red and blue are colors for the Steelers. But I agree that it takes on more of a utility function for their identity and not really a team color per se.

[TruColor]

BLACK:

Redskins

NO.

Absolutely, positively not. Burgundy (OK, cherry red), gold (OK, yellow) and white. That's it.

The fact that the Indian's hair in the helmet logo is black does not make it an official team color.

Do you consider blue and red to be Steelers colors just because they're in the helmet logo?

You shouldn't. It's a lot simpler than that.

Well, the NFL does. The NFL recognizes Burgundy, Gold, Black and Flesh Tone (the darker Burgundy in the primary logo) to be official Redskins colors. And for the Steelers, the official colors are Black, Gold, Red, Blue and Gray. And the Chiefs have Black, the Cardinals have Yellow (and Gray!), etc., etc.

These colors are all given equal billing on official Style Guide sheets.

Obviously, some colors have more predominance than others in a teams' overall color scheme, but that doesn't mean that they're not official.

[quantum]

A different take on this list...

TEAMS WHO HAVE ADDED BLACK:

Niners (didn't have it originally)

Lions (don't need it no more)

Jaguars...unnecessarily changed to primarily black

Buccaneers (if you want to split hairs, since their whole color scheme changed for '97)

The Niners have had black for a very long time. They just made the mistake of not using it in their uniforms for a long time. IMO the Jags have ruined a great look with the recent switch away from teal to black.

[Gothamite]

Yep, the Niners have used black since 1962. I think they have a claim.

[SteveR]

These colors are all given equal billing on official Style Guide sheets.

And that's where I part ways, since "common sense" holds more weight than a league style guide sheet.

To me, those ancillary colors don't belong in the discussion when talking about a certain team being "a (color)-and-(color) team."

The Blackhawks are a red-and-black team even though that gorgeous logo has yellow, green and orange in it.

Same goes for the red eye in the Buffaslug, the red tongue in the Caps' old flying eagle logo, the yellow beaks on the NFL and MLB Cardinals logos, etc.

[njb513]

Lose the black and bring back those Honolulu Blue pants!

Can we bring him back too?

Did you mean Barry Sanders or Charlie Batch? ... 'cause Detroit could probably use the both of them.

wow..dig on those silver and white socks...

[cheo25]

BLACK:

Redskins

NO.

Absolutely, positively not. Burgundy (OK, cherry red), gold (OK, yellow) and white. That's it.

The fact that the Indian's hair in the helmet logo is black does not make it an official team color.

Do you consider blue and red to be Steelers colors just because they're in the helmet logo?

You shouldn't. It's a lot simpler than that.

The Washington coaches on the sidelines on gameday have been wearing shirts and hats with black trim or that are predominately black since at least the Spurrier era. Zorn has worn a burgundy shirt with black trim.

[TruColor]

These colors are all given equal billing on official Style Guide sheets.

And that's where I part ways, since "common sense" holds more weight than a league style guide sheet.

To me, those ancillary colors don't belong in the discussion when talking about a certain team being "a (color)-and-(color) team."

The Blackhawks are a red-and-black team even though that gorgeous logo has yellow, green and orange in it.

Same goes for the red eye in the Buffaslug, the red tongue in the Caps' old flying eagle logo, the yellow beaks on the NFL and MLB Cardinals logos, etc.

I actually don't think we're disagreeing here, really. I probably should have elaborated more in my response.

Here's how I look at it, and how I store and label these kinds of things in my database:

I evaluate colors on different levels - colors that are used throughout a teams' uniforms and/or logos, versus colors that are only used for certain elements. The Steelers for example, are predominantly Black and Gold (and White). They use Red, Blue and Gray in their primary logo, but nowhere else in their uniforms. In my database, I label these kinds of colors as "Additional Colors". They're official, but not part of the primary color scheme. Here's a screen-grab from one of my database reports that I post on the SSUR:

You can see up at the top of the image, that I list the primary color scheme as "Black, Gold, White". The other colors are purely "additional colors". Given this, I would agree with you in your assertion that the Steelers are NOT a "Red" or a "Blue" team. Just as I would agree that the Redskins are not a "Black" team. My only argument, is that these colors ARE official. Not that they should be treated on an equal basis with the Black and Gold (I think I gave the wrong impression when I wrote that).

[KJTALBOT]

The mustang lion logo is not a primary. Leave bubbles alone. I don't think the Lions identity will change until/unless the team is sold. The current helmet lion (bubbles) is all over their new stadium. And it's a great, inconic logo to boot.

[OnWis97]

The mustang lion logo is not a primary. Leave bubbles alone. I don't think the Lions identity will change until/unless the team is sold. The current helmet lion (bubbles) is all over their new stadium. And it's a great, inconic logo to boot.

I can't believe it took this long for someone to suggest that the helmet logo be kept. I am always surprised by how many people want more complex, detailed, animated logos on football helmets. I realize it's just my personal taste, but I happen to love silhouette logos on helmets (Lions, Iowa, Texas). The last thing they need is an attempt at a ferocious lion.

And I totally agree that this helmet logo is right up there with the Dallas Star. It's been around for a long time. I hope they never touch it.

As for the black. I personally would like to see it ditched, but according to someone else in this thread, it's quite popular with the fans, so I can accept that as a reason to keep it.

[Blue Falcon]

BLACK:

Redskins

NO.

Absolutely, positively not. Burgundy (OK, cherry red), gold (OK, yellow) and white. That's it.

The fact that the Indian's hair in the helmet logo is black does not make it an official team color.

Do you consider blue and red to be Steelers colors just because they're in the helmet logo?

You shouldn't. It's a lot simpler than that.

According to Skins' coach Jim Zorn, their colors are "maroon and black." At least, that's what he said at his first press conference when he was hired back in February. (And of course the diminutive/abusive Dan Snyder had to pipe in "and yellow" after he said it...which technically isn't right either.)

[tmorss9]

The current helmet lion (bubbles) is all over their new stadium. And it's a great, inconic logo to boot.

You just made a homesick Detroiter laugh for the first time all day. Wasn't Art Regner on DFN this week?

I have to say that I think the throwbacks are WAY more popular than having black in the set.

[oldschoolvikings]

These colors are all given equal billing on official Style Guide sheets.

And that's where I part ways, since "common sense" holds more weight than a league style guide sheet.

To me, those ancillary colors don't belong in the discussion when talking about a certain team being "a (color)-and-(color) team."

The Blackhawks are a red-and-black team even though that gorgeous logo has yellow, green and orange in it.

Same goes for the red eye in the Buffaslug, the red tongue in the Caps' old flying eagle logo, the yellow beaks on the NFL and MLB Cardinals logos, etc.

I actually don't think we're disagreeing here, really. I probably should have elaborated more in my response.

Here's how I look at it, and how I store and label these kinds of things in my database:

I evaluate colors on different levels - colors that are used throughout a teams' uniforms and/or logos, versus colors that are only used for certain elements. The Steelers for example, are predominantly Black and Gold (and White). They use Red, Blue and Gray in their primary logo, but nowhere else in their uniforms. In my database, I label these kinds of colors as "Additional Colors". They're official, but not part of the primary color scheme. Here's a screen-grab from one of my database reports that I post on the SSUR:

You can see up at the top of the image, that I list the primary color scheme as "Black, Gold, White". The other colors are purely "additional colors". Given this, I would agree with you in your assertion that the Steelers are NOT a "Red" or a "Blue" team. Just as I would agree that the Redskins are not a "Black" team. My only argument, is that these colors ARE official. Not that they should be treated on an equal basis with the Black and Gold (I think I gave the wrong impression when I wrote that).

So what about the Chiefs? In your database, I mean. They have black trim w/ no yellow on the helmet, and yellow trim w/ no black on the uni... are they red/gold or red/black or red/gold/black?

[oldschoolvikings]

These colors are all given equal billing on official Style Guide sheets.

And that's where I part ways, since "common sense" holds more weight than a league style guide sheet.

To me, those ancillary colors don't belong in the discussion when talking about a certain team being "a (color)-and-(color) team."

The Blackhawks are a red-and-black team even though that gorgeous logo has yellow, green and orange in it.

Same goes for the red eye in the Buffaslug, the red tongue in the Caps' old flying eagle logo, the yellow beaks on the NFL and MLB Cardinals logos, etc.

I actually don't think we're disagreeing here, really. I probably should have elaborated more in my response.

Here's how I look at it, and how I store and label these kinds of things in my database:

I evaluate colors on different levels - colors that are used throughout a teams' uniforms and/or logos, versus colors that are only used for certain elements. The Steelers for example, are predominantly Black and Gold (and White). They use Red, Blue and Gray in their primary logo, but nowhere else in their uniforms. In my database, I label these kinds of colors as "Additional Colors". They're official, but not part of the primary color scheme. Here's a screen-grab from one of my database reports that I post on the SSUR:

You can see up at the top of the image, that I list the primary color scheme as "Black, Gold, White". The other colors are purely "additional colors". Given this, I would agree with you in your assertion that the Steelers are NOT a "Red" or a "Blue" team. Just as I would agree that the Redskins are not a "Black" team. My only argument, is that these colors ARE official. Not that they should be treated on an equal basis with the Black and Gold (I think I gave the wrong impression when I wrote that).

So what about the Chiefs? In your database, I mean. They have black trim w/ no yellow on the helmet, and yellow trim w/ no black on the uni... are they red/gold or red/black or red/gold/black?

[oldschoolvikings]

Fans here in Detroit like the black jersey. You see people wearing the black one all the time. At the games, I bet nearly half of the jerseys in the stands are black. I like the black trim on the blue and the road white jerseys, but agree with another poster that it looks thrown on and could've been incorporated better.

With that said, I'll say it again and again, the Billy Sims era with the silver numbers were my favorite.

I don't know too many in this area that liked the blue pants.

Personally, I'd like to see them use the (upcoming) throwbacks full time and use the Leaping Lion on the helmet. That, IMO, would be perfect.

Side note...I remember going to Michigan Panthers games (geez I'm old). Their uniforms are still among my favorite football uniforms of all time.

You really think Detroit fans like the black? I live in Detroit and I don't know anybody who likes the black. Everyone I know raves about the throwback. Unfortunately, no one buys the throwback as a jersey (really, why would you? Hell, make your own), which is why the NFL would never let them adopt it as a primary without A LOT of updating.

[TruColor]

So what about the Chiefs? In your database, I mean. They have black trim w/ no yellow on the helmet, and yellow trim w/ no black on the uni... are they red/gold or red/black or red/gold/black?

Veering off-topic again...

Here's how I see it - the only Black is in the logo, and the Gold is predominately featured in the uniform:

(You know, all of the images are available right off of the SSUR!)

[Milo Meningocele]

You really think Detroit fans like the black? I live in Detroit and I don't know anybody who likes the black.

Seconded. And the song doesn't go, "and when the blue and silver (and black) wave..."

[ferrousoxide66]

Billy Sims. My favorite, favorite NFL player OF ALL TIME.

[larrypep]

There is nothing wrong with this uniform IMO.

[dutyfree]

There is nothing wrong with this uniform IMO.

That uniform is exquisite.