Arizona Cardinals Unveil Black Alt Jerseys

[IceCap]

They look nice, but I'm still not a fan. The addition of a second set of white pants is actually the worst part about these for me. I hate it when teams need two sets of the same coloured pants to accommodate the jerseys being worn (Broncos, now the Cardinals). To me it illustrates a failure to design a truly cohesive uniform set.

Another reason I'm really not feeling these is the seemingly total irrelevancy of them. I don't know, but even after the fantastic logo overhaul and (sub-par) uniform overhaul the Cards were one of those teams that just didn't feel like a team that would wear an alternate, unless it was one of their classic sets as a throwback. This just feels forced more so then when most teams unveil an alternate for some reason.

Also, it does look like the Falcons' black jersey. On the field, yes, the white helmets will help distinguish the two teams, but on the store racks (which is just as, if not more, important these days) it will still come off as Falcons-like. This is the problem with most of the newer designs. They're just over-panelled/over-striped messes that they just don't look distinctive enough. The Cardinals' reds already looks a little to close to the Falcons' reds, and this black Cards jersey just illustrates how close the two looks are.

[Jezus_Ghoti]

About as good as they could look despite being black. Still not really something I want to see.

[leopard88]

With the white helmets, these look more like the University of Maryland than the Falcons.

Either way, they just don't look the Cardinals to me in black. Putting that aside, they're not too bad looking.

[BrianVlietDesign]

Are they the Falcons now?

[infrared41]

The jersey isn't bad. It immediately reminded me of The Falcons but it still looks all right. The real issue seems to be that it's another black alternate. I don't think this is a Detroit or Philly "black for the sake of adding black" situation. I think black was about their only option.

[Blue Falcon]

And that means what exactly???

it means this thread degenerates into the "does a change in uniforms translates into on-field success" thread.

I'm not implying causation (a common fundamental attribution error), but there does seem to be a direct correlation between the two phenomena. If I wanted to do a research paper on this, my hypothesis would be: teams that experience frequent success are less likely to radically change their uniforms, like adding an alternate jersey.

If this hypothesis were correct, then we could postulate that the following NFL teams would LIKELY change their uniforms in some way in the near future due to their lack of recent success:

Buffalo

NY Jets

Kansas City

Washington

Minnesota (2006 tweaks)

San Francisco (just went retro)

Oakland (never happen, even if they had 10 straight 0-16 seasons)

Sorry, I just finished a research paper and can't seem to get it out of my system.

[sc49erfan15]

This isn't "black for black's sake" because the Cardinals have had black as trim for quite some time, so I like it as an alternate. It does look a little like the Falcons, but no complaints from me whatsoever.

[devilray2k1]

[CubsFanBudMan]

atlanta falcons

I dunno. With the white helmets on, they'll look nothing like the Atlanta Falcons. Black shirt plus white helmet is another new NFL combination...

This is my thought as well. The jerseys side by side at a store, sure. But it's too bad they aren't actually wearing a helmet in any picture, because I think that substantially changes how it looks. With white pants, I think it'll look nice. The Cardinals threw out tradition a few years back, so I don't think this does anything to hurt it (well, except now that I type that I'm reminded that they were named after the color of their jersey). But I like how the red is used as the third color in this set. It's often suggested that the White Sox go back to this idea. It looked pretty good back in the day and I don't mind seeing it here.

[CitizenTino]

I normally abhor black alternate jerseys, but I'm putting this in the category of "guilty pleasure."

If Arizona was hell-bent on having a third jersey for merchandising, they could've done a lot worse.

[TruColor]

Official graphics for what it's worth:

For the record, I just took the standard home Red set and just re-colored them, but they're accurate.

[TruColor]

The video from azcardinals.com:

Cardinals Alt Jerseys

[Lee.]

They are neither as good, nor as bad, as the community would have you believe.

I do commend the Cards for sticking with a fairly standard block for their numbers and nameplates. There are a lot of awful custom fonts out there in professional sports these days.

[southpawstu19]

it would have been more representative of the red color if it had been switched with the white in this jersey. put red numbers with white outline, a red shoulder stripe, and use white piping instead. that way this doesnt look as black per se.

[Cujo]

I think black was about their only option.

How about no alternate jersey? That would have been an adequate option.

[Spearhead]

They're not bad, but did the Cardinals REALLY need a black alternate? The Lion didn't need one, neither do the Cards.

Ever notice that the teams who add a black alternate jersey haven't won anything in years? Take a look:

Arizona (last title 1947)

Detroit (last title 1957)

Philadelphia (last title 1960)

Atlanta (no titles)

Jacksonville (no titles)

In fact, MOST of the teams who have added alternate jerseys did so YEARS after their last title or have NEVER won a title:

Denver (exception)

New England (exception)

NY Giants (exception)

Miami (last title 1973)

Cincinnati (no titles)

Cleveland (last title 1964)

Houston (no titles)

Tennessee (no NFL titles)

San Diego (no NFL itles)

Chicago (last title 1985)

Carolina (no titles)

Seattle (no titles)

And that means what exactly???

I think it means he's noticed something and is reporting on it ... exactly.

What are you, a cop?

[BBTV]

They're not bad, but did the Cardinals REALLY need a black alternate? The Lion didn't need one, neither do the Cards.

Ever notice that the teams who add a black alternate jersey haven't won anything in years? Take a look:

Arizona (last title 1947)

Detroit (last title 1957)

Philadelphia (last title 1960)

Atlanta (no titles)

Jacksonville (no titles)

In fact, MOST of the teams who have added alternate jerseys did so YEARS after their last title or have NEVER won a title:

Denver (exception)

New England (exception)

NY Giants (exception)

Miami (last title 1973)

Cincinnati (no titles)

Cleveland (last title 1964)

Houston (no titles)

Tennessee (no NFL titles)

San Diego (no NFL itles)

Chicago (last title 1985)

Carolina (no titles)

Seattle (no titles)

And that means what exactly???

I think it means he's noticed something and is reporting on it ... exactly.

What are you, a cop?

I noticed that the last five world series winners hadn't changed their home uniforms in a long time as of the time that they won. Of the Red Sox, White Sox, Cardinals, Red Sox (again), Phillies, and Yankees, only the White Sox (1991) and Phillies (1992) have had their current looks for less than 50 years as of the time they won.

I also noticed that if I wear a blue shirt to work, the sun will be out during the day, but it will get dark at night.

[BlazerBlaze]

They're not bad, but did the Cardinals REALLY need a black alternate? The Lion didn't need one, neither do the Cards.

Ever notice that the teams who add a black alternate jersey haven't won anything in years? Take a look:

Arizona (last title 1947)

Detroit (last title 1957)

Philadelphia (last title 1960)

Atlanta (no titles)

Jacksonville (no titles)

In fact, MOST of the teams who have added alternate jerseys did so YEARS after their last title or have NEVER won a title:

Denver (exception)

New England (exception)

NY Giants (exception)

Miami (last title 1973)

Cincinnati (no titles)

Cleveland (last title 1964)

Houston (no titles)

Tennessee (no NFL titles)

San Diego (no NFL itles)

Chicago (last title 1985)

Carolina (no titles)

Seattle (no titles)

Ummm. The Falcons started wearing a black jersey WAY back in the 80s. I dont think you can say ATL added a black jersey like the Cardinals and Lions have done recently just for the sake of it.

[espo]

Here's my try at an alternate helmet. I think it makes the entire thing look better than the white helmet.

[Brian E]

Here's my try at an alternate helmet. I think it makes the entire thing look better than the white helmet.

i like that alternate helmet idea (like i mentioned though, unless it's a throwback, you can't have an alternate helmet). but overall, i think my problem with the look is too little red.

also, a good number of us don't like "modern" jersey templates or elements, and i'm no exception, because i don't think it adds anything. i understand the cards basically said, "okay, let's just keep our usual jersey scheme and switch some colors around." and if the players love the black and they want it and the marketing people think it will sell, fine. i just think a black jersey could have been executed much better. what about black jersey, same number font, but swap in red numbers outlined in white and add the arizona flag on the sleeve while ditching the unneccesary piping?