Then and Now

[infrared41]

I don't like the silver numbers. It looks a little USFL-y to me.

At least the USFL made some exciting uniforms. I think it made the NFL a bit jealous!

How do rookies always seem to find the time to resurrect threads that are 9 months old? It has to take way more effort than I'd ever bother to out in. It's no big deal but I have to think this guy was digging around quite a while before he found this. Who knows? Maybe he found the 700 threads before this one to be boring or something.

[ksupilot]

A then and now of the Jets first uniforms (after the name change from the Titans). Still love the 1963 logo, but the modernized version they use on merchandise today is even better.

Jets 1963:

Jets Now:

Modernized Jets logo:

And this update wasn't a case of fixing poor artistry...the aircraft in the modern version is a Boeing 747, which did not yet exist at the time of the original airplane logo.

[hawk36]

Seattle's early sets are vastly underrated IMO:

BEAUTIFUL!! I loved when they made this switch (I believe in '83). The Seahawk logo wrapped around the arm, blue facemask... Just awesome. So much better than the scuba suits.

I did like the sleeve (much better than the mini-hawk on the sleeves today. But, I never liked the pants, either should have been no stripe or one blue and one green like the sleeve.

I think this look (with fixed pant stripe issue), with the updated Seahawk would be a nice alt.

[walby2]

For my money, the Seahawks' 83-01 unis are the best in NFL history. Simple and strong, with regionally relevant logo and colors. There's something about that blue and green that can't be beat. I'm not a Seahawks fan by any stretch, but if I picked on logo/uniforms alone, they'd be my team in a heartbeat. I suspect that if this look is underrated, it probably has more to do with lack of on-field success than with poor logo/unis.

The 2002 redesign was a huge step down IMO. They basically marred their clean look by adding every design gimmick that was popular at the time.

[IceCap]

The 2002 redesign was in no way a clusterfukc of trendy design elements. You may be thinking of Buffalo's uniform set though. They came out the same year.

The Seahawks' current set is modern done right. No ridiculous piping. No unnecessary colours. No pointless panelling. No sad attempt to match up side panels with pants stripes. The only Seahawk combination that I dislike is the monochrome blue. They look fantastic every other time though.

That being said, you make a very strong case for the 1983-2001 set. That uniform was awesome in its simplicity. I wouldn't object to those making a comeback, under the condition that they use the design of the modern logo over the old one. You can't deny the old seahawk needed a facelift.

[walby2]

^ My main gripe with the redesign was the modification of the original Seahawk logo and going from blue/green to two shades of blue and neon green. The original blue-green combo was perfect and the addition of different shades just made it look more confused. The original logo also had a good, neat look and the tweak didn't add much - it's as though the team wasn't selling enough t-shirts and jerseys so someone told them to turn up the aggressiveness a notch.

I concede that the Seattle redesign could have been a LOT worse, but on the whole I think it was unfortunate that they had to mess with a classic. Seattle's old look really proved that less is more but the new sets threw that philosophy out the window.

[hawk36]

For my money, the Seahawks' 83-01 unis are the best in NFL history. Simple and strong, with regionally relevant logo and colors. There's something about that blue and green that can't be beat. I'm not a Seahawks fan by any stretch, but if I picked on logo/uniforms alone, they'd be my team in a heartbeat. I suspect that if this look is underrated, it probably has more to do with lack of on-field success than with poor logo/unis.

I've posted the exact stats on the board before but the '83-'01 Seahawks actually were better than the '02-Present Seahawks (W-L percentage). The new Seahawks did make it to the Super Bowl (huge) but the old Hawks made if to the AFC Championship and even had a better playoff winning percentage. Surprised me too.

[tBBP]

I wasn't anywhere near the Seahawks' war room when they sat up in there and thought out their current identity, but I do remember reading a story regarding their rebranding, and in it someone mentioned they wanted to create their own unique custom color, evocative of the Seattle sky...which is probably what led to the Puget slate color they have now. (Also probaly helped that every team except one that had royal as a team color went navy, in keeping with the trend at the time that "darker" = "more intimidating", something I actually blame on Kurt Osaki and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.) That said, why they even bothered to bounce a not-even-noticeably darker navy off that is beyond me...but I do feel the lime green was a minor stroke of genius, considering the team and the location. I do wish they had found a better way to incorporate it though, to make it more noticeable.

Regardless, methinks the Seahawks should follow their '76 expansion brethren, dust those '83-'01 uniforms off, and bring them back as a third/alternate. I bet a whole lot of people would love that. (Like me.)

And is that a Dave Krieg and Curt Warner sighting upthread there???

[hawk36]

Agree that the old Hawk unis should be the alt. People around here would love it.

How about bucking the NFL and doing a "Notre Dame" thing and come out after warm ups on Sunday night wearing the throw backs? That would make the place erupt even more than normal.

[seahawk9]

^ My main gripe with the redesign was the modification of the original Seahawk logo and going from blue/green to two shades of blue and neon green. The original blue-green combo was perfect and the addition of different shades just made it look more confused. The original logo also had a good, neat look and the tweak didn't add much - it's as though the team wasn't selling enough t-shirts and jerseys so someone told them to turn up the aggressiveness a notch.

I concede that the Seattle redesign could have been a LOT worse, but on the whole I think it was unfortunate that they had to mess with a classic. Seattle's old look really proved that less is more but the new sets threw that philosophy out the window.

Being a fan of the Seahawks since 1976, I really miss the original colors of Royal Blue, Kelly Green and Silver. I actually prefer the original uniforms with the Green sleeve stripes. The larger logo on the sleeves were added when Chuck Know became coach but that element would not work today due to the short and tightness of the jerseys styles. The logo would get crunched and undistigished thats why of the small sleeve logo used today. Don't understand why they continue to wear the all blue at home all the time. Look much better with white pants. Their current look has grown old and tired already. Please bring back the original uniforms full time or maybe if only as an alternate.

[Panthers]

I give you . . . the Baltimore Bombers

[Cujo]

Great. Another prototype thread....

How about we just designate ONE of these threads and sticky it like we did the the realignment thread in the SIG forum.

[Lights Out]

That's a damn sight better than anything the Ravens have ever worn.

[IceCap]

How about bucking the NFL and doing a "Notre Dame" thing and come out after warm ups on Sunday night wearing the throw backs? That would make the place erupt even more than normal.

They're free to do it, but they would have to pay a fine. Whether that's worth it (I doubt the reaction would be as rabid as you claim it would be) for the team would be something they would have to consider.

[TxRangersFan]

I give you . . . the Baltimore Bombers

Whoa, those are some nice looking threads!

[agentrygraphics]

I give you . . . the Baltimore Bombers

Whoa, those are some nice looking threads!

something I just noticed about the proposed Bomber uniforms...white TV numbers on a white shoulder yoke. That would have been disastrous.

[Sport]

It's a pretty damn good look as is. I def wouldn'tl add that white outline, and I think I like the yellow facemask better, but I'd have to see it with navy. I guess in 2010, navy would be what they'd go with.

I'm torn about the pants though. It does look great with white pants, but I've always been partial to yellow pants - especially on the road. Somthing about dark-white-yellow really appeals to me.

I think the reasoning is that all the other bolts on both uniforms have two outlines. I'd prefer to ditch the white insert on the shoulders and go with just the bolt, like they did on their previous set.

I'm not sure I understand. The helmet bolts and sleeve bolts appear the same - yellow bolt with navy and then white outline. The numbers are yellow with navy and white outline. Looks to me like everything is pretty much the same - what am I missing?

The bolt on the shoulder of the blue jersey is yellow, with a single blue outline. It's applied to a white insert, which, to me, does not count as having a white outline, though I can see that's where you're going with it. I read the pattern separate from the background. All the other bolts on the uniforms are yellow, with a blue outline, then a white outline, which in turn are applied to a solid blue helmet or a blue insert on the jersey or pants. IceCap is suggesting the bolt be yellow with a white outline, then a blue outline so that all the bolts have two outlines.

A picture is worth a thousand words, though, so to illustrate:

Neither is wrong or right, which is exactly why I don't think making everything 'matching' or 'consistent' is a good solution for a uniform. Everyone's definition is different and some brains read patterns differently than others.

I know all these posts are from last March, but I'd like to chime in. I much prefer the top where the bolt never changes, the white outline simply disappears on a white background. I'm of the opinion that the bolt on the jerseys and pants should always match the bolt on the helmet (because the helmet will be worn with everything) and to me, the bolt with the colors inverted doesn't match. Also, a yellow bolt with a white outline with a blue outline shows up on a monitor and in print, but on the jersey in San Diego the white and yellow would get mixed together and all what we'd get would be a thicker bolt that doesn't look like any of the other bolts on the uniform.

like you said, one isn't more right than the other. I just prefer when the white outline is implied, especially when it can been seen on a dark background on other parts of the uniform. To me that's more consistent than the other option, but that's just my opinion.

The same argument could also be applied to the Chicago Bears logo.

I love visual aids by the way. I was trying to explain this to a non uni dork the other day and this picture would've helped so much.

I agree. The white outline blends into the gold bolt. Doesn't read.

I'm with Vet. The white outline can be implied by the white background.

Thirded.

fourthed.