Jump to content

The Green or Blue Bay Packers


Recommended Posts

This is a logos site that talks about uniforms and logos, thus why the topic at hand is introduced. Nothing to do with the product on the field in terms of winning. But leave history as a nice memory, and occasionally using touches of throwback is ok, but not always. I hate when the Pens redid their old logo with the new colors.

That's exactly my point. Well, the opposite viewpioint, but still. In my opinion, for teams in a league as rich and storied as the NFL, history should never be left as a nice memory, because without that history, there is no today, in a strange, 'The Time Machine/Back to the Future,' 4th dimension kind of way, which is why history is THE most important part of each and every team's identity. Without it, there's no frame of reference. I think history, both of the team and the sport/league should always be maintained at some level with regard to the visual landscape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Quick note:

* UWGB hasn't had a marching band in decades. But I did once model an old surviving uni back in college.


* The Packers used to have their own marching band, then relegated 'em to a bandstand in one corner of Lambeau Field...then Ron Wolf got rid of 'em entirely. BOO to that, I say! (3 of 'em were music teachers of mine back in high school...many moons ago.) I'd give my left leg to have 'em back.

OK, back to the back to the topic. As a whole uniform set, these jerseys look pretty awesome. (More so from the front than the back.) However, I don't think they'll look as good on the average fan in blue jeans. The khaki-colored uniform pants really make the whole look. And I think any decals to try to make modern helmets look more leather-y would've just looked dumb. Plain brown is the best way to go. (Insert grey facemask comment here.)

And yes, the "established 1921" is BULL! The league hasn't allowed the Packers to acknowledge the fact that they're older than the NFL since the "75" patch of 1993. (Which was also the last time the Packer "G" was correctly placed on the helmet. They rode it up 3/4 of the way up the helmet in 1994, and it's rested there improperly ever since.)

Apparently I'm a nerd with too much time on my hands. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. How many substantive issues can you raise in one post?

1) The mis-placed "G" logo. Couldn't agree more - I don't care for the new positioning. Such a subtle change, but one which makes a huge difference.

1) The Lumberjack Band. Absolutely. Bring them back. With the team's growing awareness of its own history, this would be a wonderful step.

2) "Est. 1919". I don't think we can blame the League entirely for this - by all reports, the Cardinals have references to "1898" all over their new stadium. Naturally, the NFL would like to pretend that the franchises grew out of it, rather than the other way around. But the Packers have been complicit in furthering the "Est. 1921" myth. That seems to be changing, with the 90th Anniversary celebrations last year. I hope that by the time we get to the 100th the team and league finally start putting 1919 on all the merchandise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

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