NFL Concept Jerseys - 1995

[rams80]

Buying the Colts name would have been the right move. The city of Baltimore deserves that name and Indianapolis deserves to have its own name, not Baltimore's.

I think that's why I root against the Colts and Rams more than I do against the Ravens or Titans. I absolutely hate when teams are ripped from cities. At least when they change the name you don't have to continue to have the team name rubbed in your face.

Los Angeles ripped the name from Cleveland. Somehow they managed.

Cleveland had chosen the Browns - they had already deserted the Rams. Not the same thing at all.

Either way, the name is not "organic" to Los Angeles football or chosen by the fanbase.

[BawlmerOreos]

So how fast after 9/11 would the Bombers have to change their name...and logo with a plane in it?

[B-Rich]

Here is the Stallions uniform.

Isn't it interesting how closely this logo resembles the logo that Denver ultimately switched to a couple of years later albeit in a more refined and attractive appearance.

I'm sure they were fond of that design and worked with Denver officials to refine and use it. It's to be expected, now that the league office is so heavily involved in just about all aspects of team branding and marketing.

Heck, look at how the prototype look of the proposed Memphis Hound Dogs had the same color scheme as the Jacksonville Jaguars (teal, black and gold) You know the powers that be wanted that color scheme in the NFL. Look at how a couple of years later, the Baltimore Ravens wound up with the purple and gold slated for the St. Louis Stallions, as the league only had one team previously with purple in their scheme... and finally, isn't it interesting that two newly named teams-- Tennessee Titans and Houston Texans, both in the AFC-- wound up with the names of previous AFL teams, sort of honoring the AFL legacy? I don't think it's a coincidence.

[DustDevil61]

I'm sure they were fond of that design and worked with Denver officials to refine and use it. It's to be expected, now that the league office is so heavily involved in just about all aspects of team branding and marketing.

Heck, look at how the prototype look of the proposed Memphis Hound Dogs had the same color scheme as the Jacksonville Jaguars (teal, black and gold) You know the powers that be wanted that color scheme in the NFL. Look at how a couple of years later, the Baltimore Ravens wound up with the purple and gold slated for the St. Louis Stallions, as the league only had one team previously with purple in their scheme... and finally, isn't it interesting that two newly named teams-- Tennessee Titans and Houston Texans, both in the AFC-- wound up with the names of previous AFL teams, sort of honoring the AFL legacy? I don't think it's a coincidence.

Now that you point that out, it does make quite a bit of sense. It's not entirely out of the question.

[TruColor]

I'm sure they were fond of that design and worked with Denver officials to refine and use it. It's to be expected, now that the league office is so heavily involved in just about all aspects of team branding and marketing.

Heck, look at how the prototype look of the proposed Memphis Hound Dogs had the same color scheme as the Jacksonville Jaguars (teal, black and gold) You know the powers that be wanted that color scheme in the NFL. Look at how a couple of years later, the Baltimore Ravens wound up with the purple and gold slated for the St. Louis Stallions, as the league only had one team previously with purple in their scheme... and finally, isn't it interesting that two newly named teams-- Tennessee Titans and Houston Texans, both in the AFC-- wound up with the names of previous AFL teams, sort of honoring the AFL legacy? I don't think it's a coincidence.

I think that these are all valid points, however there's one minor aspect that I think is worth mentioning. CowboyKevin told me the other day that the Hound Dogs had actually intended on a color scheme of Forest Green and Metallic or Old Gold as their primary colors. I believe that the Teal, Gold and Black prototype we've seen in the past might have been a fan's concept.

Just an FYI.

[DustDevil61]

I think that these are all valid points, however there's one minor aspect that I think is worth mentioning. CowboyKevin told me the other day that the Hound Dogs had actually intended on a color scheme of Forest Green and Metallic or Old Gold as their primary colors. I believe that the Teal, Gold and Black prototype we've seen in the past might have been a fan's concept.

Just an FYI.

Yea, but 4 out of 5 still ain't bad.

[Panthers]

I'm sure they were fond of that design and worked with Denver officials to refine and use it. It's to be expected, now that the league office is so heavily involved in just about all aspects of team branding and marketing.

Heck, look at how the prototype look of the proposed Memphis Hound Dogs had the same color scheme as the Jacksonville Jaguars (teal, black and gold) You know the powers that be wanted that color scheme in the NFL. Look at how a couple of years later, the Baltimore Ravens wound up with the purple and gold slated for the St. Louis Stallions, as the league only had one team previously with purple in their scheme... and finally, isn't it interesting that two newly named teams-- Tennessee Titans and Houston Texans, both in the AFC-- wound up with the names of previous AFL teams, sort of honoring the AFL legacy? I don't think it's a coincidence.

Dude, not even close.

Look at a Raven's feathers in the light. There is a purplish sheen to them. Metallic gold was a given. Gold is part of the Maryland state flag. The Hound Dogs were going to use copper (as in a long rumored name and native snake the Copperhead). Nashville is called the Athens of the South - hence Titans. The T forms a dagger. The Dallas Texans were in the NFL long before the AFL had their version. The Arena League had a Texans too. The Stallions name, I heard, came from ownership. The AFL's St. Louis Stampede borrowed the concept from the Stallions. If anything, after the league merged, AFC teams took from the NFC: Chargers in '74 went to blue helmets, gold pants - similar to Rams change in '73. Seattle, originally an NFC team their first league year ('76 then AFC) went for silver and royal blue - similar to Dallas as they had plenty of former Dallas staff working for them.

[Gothamite]

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.

John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.

John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.

Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.

Both were shot in the head.

Both were assassinated by Southerners.

Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.

Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.

John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839.

Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939.

Booth ran from the theater and was caught in a warehouse.

Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.

Booth and Oswald were each assassinated before their trials.

Coincidence?

[IceCap]

Buying the Colts name would have been the right move. The city of Baltimore deserves that name and Indianapolis deserves to have its own name, not Baltimore's.

I think that's why I root against the Colts and Rams more than I do against the Ravens or Titans. I absolutely hate when teams are ripped from cities. At least when they change the name you don't have to continue to have the team name rubbed in your face.

Los Angeles ripped the name from Cleveland. Somehow they managed.

Cleveland had chosen the Browns - they had already deserted the Rams. Not the same thing at all.

Either way, the name is not "organic" to Los Angeles football or chosen by the fanbase.

I find myself agreeing with Rams80 here. The Cleveland Deal is, in my opinion, ridiculous. The teams themselves own their identity, not the city. Say that the Browns did become the Colts once they moved to Baltimore. Then the Indianapolis Colts, who had been using the identity for some time by that point, would need a new name. And then Cleveland would have gotten an expansion team to take the Browns name and legacy. Marketing alone would have been confusing enough, not to mention people scratching their heads trying to figure out who played for who again. None of that even touches on the problems in sorting out the team histories. How would you work out the Baltimore Colts history under that scenario? It would be forever connected to the old Cleveland Browns, only they aren't, because of the expansion Browns, who technically have the history for themselves. What about the Indianapolis team? Would the time the Colts spent there before selling the name to the Baltimore-destined old Browns count as part of the "official" Colts history or would become part of the history of the new Indianapolis team?

It's one big mess from marketing, historical, and fan standards. Yes, it's all nice and cozy to think that the fans and the city are "tied" to a specific team identity, but that's just now how it works. The teams themselves should be able to control what happens with their official "history" and identity once they move. If they want to keep the name they had before the move, like the Colts and Rams did, so be it, that's the way it works. Fans in Baltimore have no more reason to complain over losing the Colts, they got a new team. A new team with a Super Bowl championship I might add. The fact that Clevelanders still complain about the original Browns leaving is almost sickening. Not only did they get a new team, they were able to steal the identity of the old one so they could shamelessly pass their new expansion team off as an historically significant franchise. In terms of cities that have lost teams to relocation, Baltimore and Cleveland made out tremendously well.

And living in a country that lost two teams in our most beloved sport with no real prospects of getting teams back in either location, I have to ask the NFL fans in those cities to kindly be quiet and thank God they got as great a deal as they did.

[DGivens87]

Baltimore Uniform

Panther,

Thanks for posting those images. Could you post a front and back shot of the jersey? I just wanted a glimpse of the front and back w/o any obstructions.

[oldschoolvikings]

Buying the Colts name would have been the right move. The city of Baltimore deserves that name and Indianapolis deserves to have its own name, not Baltimore's.

I think that's why I root against the Colts and Rams more than I do against the Ravens or Titans. I absolutely hate when teams are ripped from cities. At least when they change the name you don't have to continue to have the team name rubbed in your face.

Los Angeles ripped the name from Cleveland. Somehow they managed.

Cleveland had chosen the Browns - they had already deserted the Rams. Not the same thing at all.

Either way, the name is not "organic" to Los Angeles football or chosen by the fanbase.

I find myself agreeing with Rams80 here. The Cleveland Deal is, in my opinion, ridiculous. The teams themselves own their identity, not the city. Say that the Browns did become the Colts once they moved to Baltimore. Then the Indianapolis Colts, who had been using the identity for some time by that point, would need a new name. And then Cleveland would have gotten an expansion team to take the Browns name and legacy. Marketing alone would have been confusing enough, not to mention people scratching their heads trying to figure out who played for who again. None of that even touches on the problems in sorting out the team histories. How would you work out the Baltimore Colts history under that scenario? It would be forever connected to the old Cleveland Browns, only they aren't, because of the expansion Browns, who technically have the history for themselves. What about the Indianapolis team? Would the time the Colts spent there before selling the name to the Baltimore-destined old Browns count as part of the "official" Colts history or would become part of the history of the new Indianapolis team?

It's one big mess from marketing, historical, and fan standards. Yes, it's all nice and cozy to think that the fans and the city are "tied" to a specific team identity, but that's just now how it works. The teams themselves should be able to control what happens with their official "history" and identity once they move. If they want to keep the name they had before the move, like the Colts and Rams did, so be it, that's the way it works. Fans in Baltimore have no more reason to complain over losing the Colts, they got a new team. A new team with a Super Bowl championship I might add. The fact that Clevelanders still complain about the original Browns leaving is almost sickening. Not only did they get a new team, they were able to steal the identity of the old one so they could shamelessly pass their new expansion team off as an historically significant franchise. In terms of cities that have lost teams to relocation, Baltimore and Cleveland made out tremendously well.

And living in a country that lost two teams in our most beloved sport with no real prospects of getting teams back in either location, I have to ask the NFL fans in those cities to kindly be quiet and thank God they got as great a deal as they did.

Yeah, that all makes sense, except one part has always bothered me. The Browns didn't just market themselves as "the Browns", they were the CLEVELAND Browns. So they sold hats and shirts and jackets and whatever else that not only had the name Browns on them but, at least sometimes, the word Cleveland too, because they knew using the name of the city would make them more appealing to people from Cleveland. And while they certainly do own the name "Browns" they were, at best, borrowing the word "Cleveland".

When a team leaves, couldn't the city request the name be left behind as a kind of payment on the rent owed by the use of the city's name for all that big money the team received by placing it in front of the nickname?

Just a thoughht...

[ebod39]

Here is the Stallions uniform.

Isn't it interesting how closely this logo resembles the logo that Denver ultimately switched to a couple of years later albeit in a more refined and attractive appearance.

I'm sure they were fond of that design and worked with Denver officials to refine and use it. It's to be expected, now that the league office is so heavily involved in just about all aspects of team branding and marketing.

Nope not at all. I worked on the Broncos project at Nike, this was never an issue. Everything created for that project from

initial sketches to final rendering where completely from scratch with no league involvement or direction.

Final approval came from Pat Bowlen, the league signed off as formality. They made no design comments or decisions at all.

[Tentomushi5150]

Not that many designs from the 1990's are still around, but the Stallions jerseys don't look like they would've survived too long had they made it to the league. Something about them is very Arena, and I can see them revamping them very quickly had they gotten the franchise.

[raz]

Now we've seen 4 of the 5 uniforms ... anybody have a reliable ... RELIABLE ... rendition of the Memphis Houndogs? or HounDogs .. or Hound Dogs, whichever it was by that time?? Anyone?

[BBTV]

Buying the Colts name would have been the right move. The city of Baltimore deserves that name and Indianapolis deserves to have its own name, not Baltimore's.

I think that's why I root against the Colts and Rams more than I do against the Ravens or Titans. I absolutely hate when teams are ripped from cities. At least when they change the name you don't have to continue to have the team name rubbed in your face.

Los Angeles ripped the name from Cleveland. Somehow they managed.

Cleveland had chosen the Browns - they had already deserted the Rams. Not the same thing at all.

Either way, the name is not "organic" to Los Angeles football or chosen by the fanbase.

I find myself agreeing with Rams80 here. The Cleveland Deal is, in my opinion, ridiculous. The teams themselves own their identity, not the city. Say that the Browns did become the Colts once they moved to Baltimore. Then the Indianapolis Colts, who had been using the identity for some time by that point, would need a new name. And then Cleveland would have gotten an expansion team to take the Browns name and legacy. Marketing alone would have been confusing enough, not to mention people scratching their heads trying to figure out who played for who again. None of that even touches on the problems in sorting out the team histories. How would you work out the Baltimore Colts history under that scenario? It would be forever connected to the old Cleveland Browns, only they aren't, because of the expansion Browns, who technically have the history for themselves. What about the Indianapolis team? Would the time the Colts spent there before selling the name to the Baltimore-destined old Browns count as part of the "official" Colts history or would become part of the history of the new Indianapolis team?

It's one big mess from marketing, historical, and fan standards. Yes, it's all nice and cozy to think that the fans and the city are "tied" to a specific team identity, but that's just now how it works. The teams themselves should be able to control what happens with their official "history" and identity once they move. If they want to keep the name they had before the move, like the Colts and Rams did, so be it, that's the way it works. Fans in Baltimore have no more reason to complain over losing the Colts, they got a new team. A new team with a Super Bowl championship I might add. The fact that Clevelanders still complain about the original Browns leaving is almost sickening. Not only did they get a new team, they were able to steal the identity of the old one so they could shamelessly pass their new expansion team off as an historically significant franchise. In terms of cities that have lost teams to relocation, Baltimore and Cleveland made out tremendously well.

And living in a country that lost two teams in our most beloved sport with no real prospects of getting teams back in either location, I have to ask the NFL fans in those cities to kindly be quiet and thank God they got as great a deal as they did.

Yeah, that all makes sense, except one part has always bothered me. The Browns didn't just market themselves as "the Browns", they were the CLEVELAND Browns. So they sold hats and shirts and jackets and whatever else that not only had the name Browns on them but, at least sometimes, the word Cleveland too, because they knew using the name of the city would make them more appealing to people from Cleveland. And while they certainly do own the name "Browns" they were, at best, borrowing the word "Cleveland".

When a team leaves, couldn't the city request the name be left behind as a kind of payment on the rent owed by the use of the city's name for all that big money the team received by placing it in front of the nickname?

Just a thoughht...

This is interesting. I'd say no - while most cities are incorporated (or are all cities incorporated?), they're not like private corporations. They're technically publicly owned, and while I'm no law-talkin' guy, I'd say that as long as you're paying taxes to the city, you are a "part owner", and have the right to use the name for whatever purpose you want.

[Sport]

Now we've seen 4 of the 5 uniforms ... anybody have a reliable ... RELIABLE ... rendition of the Memphis Houndogs? or HounDogs .. or Hound Dogs, whichever it was by that time?? Anyone?

All I know is that the Memphis "HounDogs" would've been the worst NFL nickname since the Dayton Triangles.

[Gothamite]

Not that many designs from the 1990's are still around, but the Stallions jerseys don't look like they would've survived too long had they made it to the league. Something about them is very Arena, and I can see them revamping them very quickly had they gotten the franchise.

I suspect that they would have pulled a Jacksonville - "fashion-forward" uniforms at the unveiling, more classic/traditional look by the time they actually took the field.

I know the Jags lost the right to the "leaping jaguar" logo, but if they were really keen on the asymmetrical design, it could have been kept when they re-did the rest of the uniforms.

[IceCap]

This is in response to oldschoolvikings. Sorry, I tried replying directly but the site's not working correctly on my end.

Anyway I have to disagree. The team's identity is ultimately the property of the team. The use of Cleveland in the Browns' case was just to advertise where the team was located out of. Ultimately the name of the team should belong to the team, not the city. The team is a private entity. A public entity like a city has no right to claim the identity of that private entity as their own. If a team moves, and they still have a lease with the city, then they can buy their way out of it. The money received from that buyout is all that the city should receive.

So no, I have no love for the Cleveland Deal. It strips teams of what I feel is their right to continue to use their old identity if they so choose to. It also robs franchises of their true history, and assigns that often rich history to nothing more then an expansion team. Of course I am speaking as an outsider, who obviously doesn't understand the connection between the city of Cleveland and their NFL team

[TalktoChuck]

Buying the Colts name would have been the right move. The city of Baltimore deserves that name and Indianapolis deserves to have its own name, not Baltimore's.

I think that's why I root against the Colts and Rams more than I do against the Ravens or Titans. I absolutely hate when teams are ripped from cities. At least when they change the name you don't have to continue to have the team name rubbed in your face.

Los Angeles ripped the name from Cleveland. Somehow they managed.

Cleveland had chosen the Browns - they had already deserted the Rams. Not the same thing at all.

Either way, the name is not "organic" to Los Angeles football or chosen by the fanbase.

I find myself agreeing with Rams80 here. The Cleveland Deal is, in my opinion, ridiculous. The teams themselves own their identity, not the city. Say that the Browns did become the Colts once they moved to Baltimore. Then the Indianapolis Colts, who had been using the identity for some time by that point, would need a new name. And then Cleveland would have gotten an expansion team to take the Browns name and legacy. Marketing alone would have been confusing enough, not to mention people scratching their heads trying to figure out who played for who again. None of that even touches on the problems in sorting out the team histories. How would you work out the Baltimore Colts history under that scenario? It would be forever connected to the old Cleveland Browns, only they aren't, because of the expansion Browns, who technically have the history for themselves. What about the Indianapolis team? Would the time the Colts spent there before selling the name to the Baltimore-destined old Browns count as part of the "official" Colts history or would become part of the history of the new Indianapolis team?

It's one big mess from marketing, historical, and fan standards. Yes, it's all nice and cozy to think that the fans and the city are "tied" to a specific team identity, but that's just now how it works. The teams themselves should be able to control what happens with their official "history" and identity once they move. If they want to keep the name they had before the move, like the Colts and Rams did, so be it, that's the way it works. Fans in Baltimore have no more reason to complain over losing the Colts, they got a new team. A new team with a Super Bowl championship I might add. The fact that Clevelanders still complain about the original Browns leaving is almost sickening. Not only did they get a new team, they were able to steal the identity of the old one so they could shamelessly pass their new expansion team off as an historically significant franchise. In terms of cities that have lost teams to relocation, Baltimore and Cleveland made out tremendously well.

And living in a country that lost two teams in our most beloved sport with no real prospects of getting teams back in either location, I have to ask the NFL fans in those cities to kindly be quiet and thank God they got as great a deal as they did.

What you are over looking is the fact that if the city of Baltimore had retained the rights to the name Colts, then the Indianapolis Colts would have never exsisted. When they moved to Indy they would have a chosen a different name, just as the Browns became the Ravens when they moved to Baltimore.

[IceCap]

Buying the Colts name would have been the right move. The city of Baltimore deserves that name and Indianapolis deserves to have its own name, not Baltimore's.

I think that's why I root against the Colts and Rams more than I do against the Ravens or Titans. I absolutely hate when teams are ripped from cities. At least when they change the name you don't have to continue to have the team name rubbed in your face.

Los Angeles ripped the name from Cleveland. Somehow they managed.

Cleveland had chosen the Browns - they had already deserted the Rams. Not the same thing at all.

Either way, the name is not "organic" to Los Angeles football or chosen by the fanbase.

I find myself agreeing with Rams80 here. The Cleveland Deal is, in my opinion, ridiculous. The teams themselves own their identity, not the city. Say that the Browns did become the Colts once they moved to Baltimore. Then the Indianapolis Colts, who had been using the identity for some time by that point, would need a new name. And then Cleveland would have gotten an expansion team to take the Browns name and legacy. Marketing alone would have been confusing enough, not to mention people scratching their heads trying to figure out who played for who again. None of that even touches on the problems in sorting out the team histories. How would you work out the Baltimore Colts history under that scenario? It would be forever connected to the old Cleveland Browns, only they aren't, because of the expansion Browns, who technically have the history for themselves. What about the Indianapolis team? Would the time the Colts spent there before selling the name to the Baltimore-destined old Browns count as part of the "official" Colts history or would become part of the history of the new Indianapolis team?

It's one big mess from marketing, historical, and fan standards. Yes, it's all nice and cozy to think that the fans and the city are "tied" to a specific team identity, but that's just now how it works. The teams themselves should be able to control what happens with their official "history" and identity once they move. If they want to keep the name they had before the move, like the Colts and Rams did, so be it, that's the way it works. Fans in Baltimore have no more reason to complain over losing the Colts, they got a new team. A new team with a Super Bowl championship I might add. The fact that Clevelanders still complain about the original Browns leaving is almost sickening. Not only did they get a new team, they were able to steal the identity of the old one so they could shamelessly pass their new expansion team off as an historically significant franchise. In terms of cities that have lost teams to relocation, Baltimore and Cleveland made out tremendously well.

And living in a country that lost two teams in our most beloved sport with no real prospects of getting teams back in either location, I have to ask the NFL fans in those cities to kindly be quiet and thank God they got as great a deal as they did.

What you are over looking is the fact that if the city of Baltimore had retained the rights to the name Colts, then the Indianapolis Colts would have never exsisted. When they moved to Indy they would have a chosen a different name, just as the Browns became the Ravens when they moved to Baltimore.

*sigh*

Look, hawk36 suggested that the original Cleveland Browns, upon moving to Baltimore in 1996, should have bought the Colts name and identity from the actual Colts team, which had been playing in Indianapolis for twelve years by that point.

Furthermore, the Colts had every right to take their name to Indy. It was the team's name, not the city of Baltimore's name. And furthermore Baltimore got a new team, one that would go on to win a Super Bowl of their own. So I see no reason for Baltimore NFL fans to moan about the Colts skipping town.