Bills confirm new uniform for 2011

[JQK]

Uniform looks great. Like a pro football uniform should look.

[JohnnySeoul]

Bills looked amazing last night.....now that's Buffalo football. I'm not understanding the complaining over the socks stripes though. The Bills aren't the only team that have striped socks that do not match the rest of the uniform. There are quite a few teams out there like that. Black shoes are the only adjustment I would make.

[BigMac12]

Looks okay, but the gray facemasks stick out.

Off-topic: Any Buffalo fans love Ted's Hot Dogs?

[Gothamite]

Gray facemasks make the outfit work.

[WSU151]

Disagree about the shoes, with all that all-white the black shoes made the new look bearable. .

Gray mask is better, the blue one was used early 80s ... didn't look well.

Did the blue masks have the flu? Maybe some bronchitis?

Oh you mean it didn't look good. Oh ok. English is a b!tch.

I'd have liked to see this set with blue masks. And stripes and outlines that at least almost match up. Granted, the pants stripes are close to the helmet stripes, but not exact. In this away set, you have 1) a tapered red stripe outline in royal and navy 2) royal sleeve stripes outlined in navy and red 3) royal numbers outlined in red and navy 4) untapered red pants stripes outlined in royal and navy and 5) socks with white stripes outlined in navy, red, and royal. And oh, 89 buffalo logos mixed in.

I think the design team could have done better.

[Mongoose]

Gray facemasks make the outfit work.

I see where you are coming from in your statement, but IMO a blue or white facesmask would have worked with the uniform better than a grey facemask, because there is no grey on the uniform other than the facemask.

[JQK]

Gray facemasks make the outfit work.

I see where you are coming from in your statement, but IMO a blue or white facesmask would have worked with the uniform better than a grey facemask, because there is no grey on the uniform other than the facemask.

Having already seen the Bills with white helmet/blue facemask, I can say for certain that, in my opinion, it doesn't work...

[tBBP]

On the whole, this new set is better than what it replaced by leaps and bounds.

Still, I can't get over the little itty bitty extraneous details that muddle down the entire look.

Start with the retention inclusion of navy...unnecessary. It adds nothing, and in fact muddies the stripes and the numbers. Since we all knew the then-throwback look would become their new primaries, they'd have done well enough to have, well, left well enough alone with that. Next, the widening helmet stripe...again, does it really serve a purpose other than to just widen for the sake of widening? Granted, most folks won't even pick up on it, but to me, it just seems like the product of a late-night visit by the good-idea fairy to the design team as a way of saying "here's an interesting little quirk we can try!". And lastly, the melodrama with the stripes--which, again, wouldn't even be an issue if the navy wasn't included. And actually, me personally, I'd have rather seen the silver/gray retained rather than the navy. It would have made plenty of sense, too, to keep it and call it "buffalo nickel". (And then the anti-gray facemask committee wouldn't be able to b!+ch about it. ) I will say this, though: great job on cleaning up that wordmark.

So, while I'm not impressed by this new look, it's not bad at all. It could be better, but the little extraneous details really kinda ruin it for me. Still, VAST improvement over the previous sets.

[andrewharrington]

1. The navy blue makes the whole think look muddy.

2. the shiny screen printed sleeve stripes look cheap.

3. The wide stripe on the back of the helmet is unnecessary.

4. Wow, did they ever botch those socks.

5. Logos on a uniform anywhere other than the helmet is ridiculous.

[CS85]

I don't like the helmet stripe, but the rest of the uniform looked good.

[BBTV]

5. Logos on a uniform anywhere other than the helmet is ridiculous.

Disagree. Sleeve logos work for a lot of teams. It depends on the shape of the logo, whether it's redundant, and what else is going on with the sleeve. The Eagles are a perfect example - the logo is shaped perfectly to be worn on a sleeve (oblong, but not too much), it's not redundant since they don't wear it on the helmet too, and there's nothing else competing for attention on the sleeve.

Logos above the NOB are relatively innocuous. I don't even really notice them. Logos on the pants are horrible in every case. Maybe if they go with that Nike pants template that everyone here uses now where the stripes stop before the hip creating a natural space, then maybe it'd work... but probably not.

[ARTnSocal]

Off-topic: Any Buffalo fans love Ted's Hot Dogs?

...

Yes .... I'd like a foot-long on a regular size toasted bun ............ and with a Loganberry to go with it.

I prefer the one on Sheridan Drive ...

[McCall]

All in all a great look, but:

- Needs to use the blue top socks

- Navy isn't too noticeable so it's not an issue with me

- The helmet and pant stripes need to be reversed to red/blue/red. It would match up a lot better with the stripes and numbers on the jersey.

- Unsure about the helmet stripe widening

Other than that, I love it. I love the gray fask mask, though I wouldn't have complained if they went blue. Love the black shoes with them. And the white on white is a good option to use a few times, blue pants would definitely look best with the white jersey, in which case these socks would be appropriate.

[WideRight]

My minor quibble list:

1. Change to a wider pant stripe, and one that tapered as the helmet does.

2. Solid royal or red socks.

3. Remove the logos on the pants. The one on the back is fine.

4. Widen the sleeve stripes or lower the sleeve stripes just a bit.

5. Create a secondary logo, perhaps a forward perspective like the Arena Buffalo Destroyers had

or an update of the classic "man & buffalo inside football" logo for use on sleeves.

6. I still think a blue facemask would work better. but if not, white would be better than grey.

7. BLUE PANTS!!!!

[JQK]

I hate solid socks, outside of a few looks where it makes sense to have them.

[ARTnSocal]

Most people who I spoke to in WNY during the game yesterday didn't even notice the helmet stripe widening towards the rear like us geeks, until I pointed it out.

The navy on the outside of the jersey numbers and elsewhere is barely noticeable to most, and quite harmless IMO.

Get rid of the Black shoes Johnny? ..............Noooooooooooo!!

The navy on the striping is so thin and barely noticeable yet it adds a closure to the royal blue outside of the helmet & pant striping.

Agree about the '89 logos', but they're tolerable.

Not having blue away pants isn't tho' ..... if you build them they will come .... they've been built, so pop them puppies out, and soon!!

Many of the jerseys and socks on the players seems stretched and didn't fit right .... either that or Reggie Torbar's (53) got the largest calves of any LB possible !!

Perhaps even new uniforms need a preseason period for the equipment managers to get things right.

[CS85]

nah he's got his socks on right, merriman's got his sucks pulled up really, really tight, stretching the stripes out.

[Saintsfan]

I am not sure personally that blue pants would really work as well as some people seem to think. But I agree the sock striping is a touch jarring.

[dennisbergan]

The Bills aren't the only team that have striped socks that do not match the rest of the uniform.

And those other teams look crappy too.

Just wear solid blue socks. It would improve the entire look ten-fold.

Wear the "home" blue striped socks with the blue pants.

Throw those lame-ass socks they wore last night into the fire and burn them.

[andrewharrington]

5. Logos on a uniform anywhere other than the helmet is ridiculous.

Disagree. Sleeve logos work for a lot of teams. It depends on the shape of the logo, whether it's redundant, and what else is going on with the sleeve. The Eagles are a perfect example - the logo is shaped perfectly to be worn on a sleeve (oblong, but not too much), it's not redundant since they don't wear it on the helmet too, and there's nothing else competing for attention on the sleeve.

Logos above the NOB are relatively innocuous. I don't even really notice them. Logos on the pants are horrible in every case. Maybe if they go with that Nike pants template that everyone here uses now where the stripes stop before the hip creating a natural space, then maybe it'd work... but probably not.

The Eagles represent one in a very small percentage of cases in which this is set of criteria is met, but I still don't like it, just as I don't really like the idea of logos on basketball shorts. Logos on hockey shoulders is all right, as are logos on baseball sleeves. I've just never been a fan of extraneous logos on football or basketball uniforms, in most, but not all cases. I would rather see something that incorporates the whole garment, like stripes. The only time I really can say that sleeve logos are a good thing is when the helmet is blank, i.e., Notre Dame, the Redskins' 1994 throwbacks, or occasionally when the logo appears on both sides of the shorts, like the Bulls.