dennisbergan 61 Posted August 16, 2009 What is the deal with the player names on the uniforms?Seriously, it looks like they took the uniforms to some cheap place on the corner and got the names sewn on 45 minutes before the game started.That really hurts the overall uniform. Just very cheap-looking.And the grey facemask just is completely out-of-place. Have no idea why its even there. A red facemask would look 1000 times better. As a commentator on ESPN said yesterday (as the Mets weekend abominations were being shown)...."ENOUGH WITH THE THROWBACKS ALREADY!!!". I agree. Throwbacks are played out. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scraw28 389 Posted August 16, 2009 they need to go to a regular type font they used to wear in the early 80's or the regular font they wore until the change in 1996 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ca8642 0 Posted August 16, 2009 looks like a messThe worst part of that picture is that the players are illegally wearing their socks too low. With all the other things the NFL hammers guys about, they need to start on the socks. Each player should be fined for stepping on the field like that. Other than that, the stripes are horrible, but overall the look is great. I could live with the pants this year (it's and improvement over the previous look), but I would like to see them switch to metallic next year. The only problem is, I don't know how well they can match the pants to the helmet. The material of the pants last year wasn't right. The gold looked very different from the helmet when the pants were wet. Maybe they couldn't get the golds to match correctly, so they decided to go back to the khaki look.Regarding the pants: Colorwerx says it's the same gold from the previous set transferred to this set, but he says he can't speak for the fabric though. Maybe a different type of fabric being used? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the admiral 29,105 Posted August 16, 2009 What are they using for names on the back? Isn't it the same varsity serif as Dallas?I don't mind the new uniforms, by the way. It's not perfect, but nothing will be perfect in a league where everyone dresses like a slob. Best you can do is not have superfluous black trim and drop-shadows, I suppose. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Survival79 2,178 Posted August 16, 2009 What are they using for names on the back? Isn't it the same varsity serif as Dallas? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
the admiral 29,105 Posted August 16, 2009 Hmm. Little bolder. I see nothing wrong with it. Maybe I'm just jaded with NFL uniforms since nobody can properly dress themselves anymore. At least the 49ers' new stuff is monochrome-proofed so as to protect the team from themselves. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sc49erfan15 2,387 Posted August 16, 2009 As far as I can tell from my Niners jerseys (including a Jason Webster throwback gamer from '02) the name font is spot-on, except it seems to be a little shorter.That said, I agree that it looks a little cheap. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sodboy13 5,768 Posted August 16, 2009 Hmm. Little bolder. I see nothing wrong with it. Maybe I'm just jaded with NFL uniforms since nobody can properly dress themselves anymore. At least the 49ers' new stuff is monochrome-proofed so as to protect the team from themselves.Since you brought it up, for a league often positioned as being so rigid and uniform, the overall look really is slovenly, isn't it? Like, Manny-Ramirez-and-Prince-Fielder-had-a-baby slovenly. There's a chance a lot of the teams in the league would look better if the players simply knew how to dress themselves.Also, watching the Broncos in action really makes me realize how forward-thinking Nike was back in '97. One of the best looks for the current fit of uniforms out there. Oh, and news flash: Kyle Orton still sucks. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PackerBadger 5 Posted August 16, 2009 In Madden 10, when you go through the uniform choices for the 49ers, you'll come across an all white away set. Yes, apparently the white pants are back after that one season only deal back in 97.The 49ers wore the white pants in both 1996 and 1997. Their last game in the 1996 season was the mud bowl playoff game at Lambeau. Their last game in the 1997 season was in the rain (I believe) against the Packers again, this time at Candlestick. The gold pants made their (previously unannounced) debut in the '98 season opener. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TruColor 649 Posted August 17, 2009 Previous fabric/textile colors:...vs. current fabric/textile colors: 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ca8642 0 Posted August 17, 2009 Previous fabric/textile colors:...vs. current fabric/textile colors:Therefore they are wearing the same gold pants with new trim. It looks different because the lighter red reduces the dark/light contrast with the gold pants making the pants seem darker. Also the new stripes on the pants "pop" out a little more than last year's trim. As before, it's a combination look of the throwback and last year's set - retaining features of both - whereas the 2008 uniform was a combination look of the 1994 throwbacks and the classic look. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philly97flyer 204 Posted August 17, 2009 As far as I can tell from my Niners jerseys (including a Jason Webster throwback gamer from '02) the name font is spot-on, except it seems to be a little shorter.That said, I agree that it looks a little cheap.I think the shorter font is a product of these new style jerseys. Funny you bring that up, because I remember last season when some of the Giants players were prototyping them on the road, I remember thinking that the letters on the names looked a little smaller. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BBTV 20,971 Posted August 17, 2009 I feel sad to live in a world where these "new" 49ers uniforms are considered superior to last year's model. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JQK 1,133 Posted August 17, 2009 Uniform looks great.Looks like a football uniform, not a Jackson Pollock painting, which many modern uniforms resemble.Were the 49ers uniforms from last year awful? No.However, these are clearly superior. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BBTV 20,971 Posted August 17, 2009 The previous uniforms were a minor sleeve alteration away from being perfect.These feature an unnecessary stripe gimmick, BFBS on the logo (doesn't match anywhere else), and an contrived-throwback gray facemask. Fix those things, and it's a nice looking uniform... but still not superior to the previous set.The previous set made excellent use of black from head to toe, had a better shade of red (though I can see where this is debatable), had the throwbackish drop shadow that looked fantastic in the modern application, and had the superior helmet of the two.Only negative was the sleeves. The SF logo on the sleeve was totally unnecessary, and the stripes themselves didn't work well IMO. Had they lost one or the other, it'd have been a perfect uniform. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gothamite 24,586 Posted August 17, 2009 The previous set made excellent use of black from head to toe, had a better shade of red (though I can see where this is debatable),Um, every one of those statements is debatable.That's the thing about opinions. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BBTV 20,971 Posted August 17, 2009 The previous set made excellent use of black from head to toe, had a better shade of red (though I can see where this is debatable),Um, every one of those statements is debatable.That's the thing about opinions. I only post facts. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tBBP 2,724 Posted August 17, 2009 The previous uniforms were a minor sleeve alteration away from being perfect.These feature an unnecessary stripe gimmick, BFBS on the logo (doesn't match anywhere else), and an contrived-throwback gray facemask. Fix those things, and it's a nice looking uniform... but still not superior to the previous set.The previous set made excellent use of black from head to toe, had a better shade of red (though I can see where this is debatable), had the throwbackish drop shadow that looked fantastic in the modern application, and had the superior helmet of the two.Only negative was the sleeves. The SF logo on the sleeve was totally unnecessary, and the stripes themselves didn't work well IMO. Had they lost one or the other, it'd have been a perfect uniform.I am in total agreement with this assessment.The funny thing is that I've long thought that if the Niners absolutely HAD to have the "SF" monogram on the sleeves, they should have cut an oval shape out of the stripe group and stuck the monogram in the negative space created by the cutout.Something like this:===== ========== SF ========== ======Very rough...but maybe you all can sorta see my idea. (And, the "SF" would obviously fill up more of the negative space.) 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EddieJ1984 1,735 Posted August 17, 2009 The funny thing is that I've long thought that if the Niners absolutely HAD to have the "SF" monogram on the sleeves, they should have cut an oval shape out of the stripe group and stuck the monogram in the negative space created by the cutout.Something like this:===== ========== SF ========== ======Very rough...but maybe you all can sorta see my idea. (And, the "SF" would obviously fill up more of the negative space.)Something like this? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jamikel 91 Posted August 17, 2009 After seeing them in action, I realized what San Francisco's new sleeve stripes reminded me of. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
