Bills confirm new uniform for 2011

[BBTV]

You know what the problem is with pushing the envelope? Sometimes you push it right off a cliff. That's what happened with the Bills' last/current set. It's time to reign it in, get back to basics. The Bills are an older team in a smaller, traditional northern market, kind of like the AFL/AFC version of the Packers. They're a team that just looks right in traditionally styled uniforms.

Back to "pushing the design envelope" though. Sports logo/uniform design is not the optimum field for that. At the end of the day the goal is for the team to look good. Not reinvent the standards of graphic design. Push the envelope, explore new frontiers in other fields of design, reinvent the wheel, etc... in other areas. When it comes to a sports team and their identity they just need to look good.

Pushing the envelope and looking good are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of examples of teams with non-traditional uniforms that look good. The "traditional" designs that we're talking about here were born out of an era where that's just what you did. You did stripes, block font, and a gray facemask. It wasn't necessarily that way because they weren't "pushing the design envelope", it's just all that was really known or available. Had they started out today, they'd look quite different, and Ice_Cap_Jr would be on this site 25 years from now bitching about how teams need to go back to the basics of piping, side panels, and numbers that don't actually light up and flash whenever the player scores a touchdown (or gets a flag on him).

Actually, making the player's numbers flash when he gets a flag on him would be pretty neat.

[hawk36]

If true, there isn't a word to describe the magnitude of the upgrade.

From the very bottom of the league right up to the top tier.

There's gotta be a catch. They'll screw it up somehow.

TOO MANY OUTLINES!!!

they really better NOT outline the logo on the helmet

Agreed. Too many outlines.

Here's a tip on spotting an inadequate design or designer... if they put too many outlines, or add black (or in this case navy blue), they're trying to make up for a design that's simply not working. In this case, I'd say the design is fine but the designer is trying to make it "super extra cool" by adding unneeded elements.

Or the client is saying "it's not cool enough, add an outline to it."

You have no idea what the designer had in mind. Obviously the Bills approved of it and bought it, so it's their fault.

Or they were talked into it by a designer "who knows what works/looks good/sells, because he's a professional."

There's plenty of blame to go around when a design doesn't work. Maybe the client set unreasonable parameters, maybe the designer isn't very good. Not having been in on the meetings, we'll never know how to apportion the blame for any given case.

All we can do is look at a designer's portfolio as a whole. If they consistently make bad choices, then it's more likely on them than the clients. If the bad choices are outliers, then we know the clients were idiots who should have listened to the professional.

I stand corrected. I didn't mean a personal attack on this particular designer, rather meant the "designer" as a whole... client/designer process. Instead of saying "designer is trying" I should have said "someone is trying to make it super extra cool..."

[oldschoolvikings]

It's a total cop out. It's like saying I could have a hot pocket or a steak for dinner, but I overcooked a steak once, so hot pockets are right for me. Well, that's not that great of an analogy but I'm sick so that's all I got.

Their last horrid uniform is not the archetype of modern design. One failure should not condemn an entire genre. They could very easily come up with a contemporary look that is unique and tasteful, but they took the easy way out. Not that it looks bad, but it's like giving up. They could at least have come up with something that didn't try to jam a 30-year old sleeve striping pattern onto sleeveless jerseys.

How about this analogy... Coca-cola tried to be inovative when they came out with New Coke back in the 80's. It was, of course, a complete disaster. Their "fan base" hated it. Should they have done something else "inovative" to replace it (maybe New New Coke?) or gone back to what worked before?

[IceCap]

You know what the problem is with pushing the envelope? Sometimes you push it right off a cliff. That's what happened with the Bills' last/current set. It's time to reign it in, get back to basics. The Bills are an older team in a smaller, traditional northern market, kind of like the AFL/AFC version of the Packers. They're a team that just looks right in traditionally styled uniforms.

Back to "pushing the design envelope" though. Sports logo/uniform design is not the optimum field for that. At the end of the day the goal is for the team to look good. Not reinvent the standards of graphic design. Push the envelope, explore new frontiers in other fields of design, reinvent the wheel, etc... in other areas. When it comes to a sports team and their identity they just need to look good.

Pushing the envelope and looking good are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of examples of teams with non-traditional uniforms that look good.

I agree. There are plenty of teams out there (quite a lot in the NFL, your Eagles included) that have nice contemporary designs. Sadly, the Bills are not one of them. They tried to do something new and different, and while they deserve credit for that the end result was that they ended up with a jumbled mess of colours, panelling, striping, and piping.

A lot of teams made the jump to contemporary design and ended up with fantastic uniforms. The Bills made the jump and came up short. So I'll wager after nine years in their current over-designed threads they want to go in the completely opposite direction. They tried new and it didn't work, so they're trying traditional now. Sure, if they hired the right people/really tried they could come up with a contemporary design that's pretty nice, but it wouldn't be enough of a departure from what they're wearing now. It seems like they want as much a disassociation as possible, hence the new designs being retro-based.

The "traditional" designs that we're talking about here were born out of an era where that's just what you did. You did stripes, block font, and a gray facemask. It wasn't necessarily that way because they weren't "pushing the design envelope", it's just all that was really known or available.

For the record I hate grey facemasks, save for rare instances. The Giants, Raiders, Cowboys, and even the Cardinals get a pass. Everyone else needs coloured masks. If the new Bills helmet has a grey mask I'll consider it a misstep.

The whole pushing the envelope thing, for me anyway, is like this. You have a team. They want new uniforms. Said uniform will sell, regardless of design (cynical, but true). The goal of the team in this situation is to look good. If they can do that by reaching into the past and bringing back a look that's both aesthetically pleasing and one the fans have fond memories of, perfect.

Sports uniform/logo design isn't the design field to push the boundaries of design, because that's not the goal. The goal is simply for the team to look as good as possible. If they can do so in contemporary uniforms, cool. Likewise if they can do that going to an older look. Pushing the envelope just for the sake of doing something new, even if it ends up looking terrible, does no one any favours.

Had they started out today, they'd look quite different, and Ice_Cap_Jr would be on this site 25 years from now bitching about how teams need to go back to the basics of piping, side panels, and numbers that don't actually light up and flash whenever the player scores a touchdown (or gets a flag on him).

Actually, making the player's numbers flash when he gets a flag on him would be pretty neat.

Indeed. If the Bills started out today it would be a different situation. Which is why I think a team's history and tradition needs to be factored into these things. If the Bills were a 1990s or 2000s expansion team we would all have very different ideas of how the Bills "should" look. They aren't, though. They're from 1960, one of the AFL/AFC's founding franchises. They play in a smaller, traditional northern market, almost a relic from the days when pro sports could exist in smaller markets. All of this, to me anyway, says to me the Bills are a team that should wear a traditional design.

Just like a 1990s NHL sunbelt expansion team with a chromed sabre-tooth tiger logo looks ridiculous in an Original Six-influenced design, so to does a 50+ year old football team from a northern small town look ridiculous in a futuristic getup of panels and piping.

Count me as a fan of light-up numbers though.

[UnclearInitial]

You know what the problem is with pushing the envelope? Sometimes you push it right off a cliff. That's what happened with the Bills' last/current set. It's time to reign it in, get back to basics. The Bills are an older team in a smaller, traditional northern market, kind of like the AFL/AFC version of the Packers. They're a team that just looks right in traditionally styled uniforms.

Back to "pushing the design envelope" though. Sports logo/uniform design is not the optimum field for that. At the end of the day the goal is for the team to look good. Not reinvent the standards of graphic design. Push the envelope, explore new frontiers in other fields of design, reinvent the wheel, etc... in other areas. When it comes to a sports team and their identity they just need to look good.

Pushing the envelope and looking good are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of examples of teams with non-traditional uniforms that look good.

I agree. There are plenty of teams out there (quite a lot in the NFL, your Eagles included) that have nice contemporary designs. Sadly, the Bills are not one of them. They tried to do something new and different, and while they deserve credit for that the end result was that they ended up with a jumbled mess of colours, panelling, striping, and piping.

A lot of teams made the jump to contemporary design and ended up with fantastic uniforms. The Bills made the jump and came up short. So I'll wager after nine years in their current over-designed threads they want to go in the completely opposite direction. They tried new and it didn't work, so they're trying traditional now. Sure, if they hired the right people/really tried they could come up with a contemporary design that's pretty nice, but it wouldn't be enough of a departure from what they're wearing now. It seems like they want as much a disassociation as possible, hence the new designs being retro-based.

The "traditional" designs that we're talking about here were born out of an era where that's just what you did. You did stripes, block font, and a gray facemask. It wasn't necessarily that way because they weren't "pushing the design envelope", it's just all that was really known or available.

For the record I hate grey facemasks, save for rare instances. The Giants, Raiders, Cowboys, and even the Cardinals get a pass. Everyone else needs coloured masks. If the new Bills helmet has a grey mask I'll consider it a misstep.

The whole pushing the envelope thing, for me anyway, is like this. You have a team. They want new uniforms. Said uniform will sell, regardless of design (cynical, but true). The goal of the team in this situation is to look good. If they can do that by reaching into the past and bringing back a look that's both aesthetically pleasing and one the fans have fond memories of, perfect.

Sports uniform/logo design isn't the design field to push the boundaries of design, because that's not the goal. The goal is simply for the team to look as good as possible. If they can do so in contemporary uniforms, cool. Likewise if they can do that going to an older look. Pushing the envelope just for the sake of doing something new, even if it ends up looking terrible, does no one any favours.

Had they started out today, they'd look quite different, and Ice_Cap_Jr would be on this site 25 years from now bitching about how teams need to go back to the basics of piping, side panels, and numbers that don't actually light up and flash whenever the player scores a touchdown (or gets a flag on him).

Actually, making the player's numbers flash when he gets a flag on him would be pretty neat.

Indeed. If the Bills started out today it would be a different situation. Which is why I think a team's history and tradition needs to be factored into these things. If the Bills were a 1990s or 2000s expansion team we would all have very different ideas of how the Bills "should" look. They aren't, though. They're from 1960, one of the AFL/AFC's founding franchises. They play in a smaller, traditional northern market, almost a relic from the days when pro sports could exist in smaller markets. All of this, to me anyway, says to me the Bills are a team that should wear a traditional design.

Just like a 1990s NHL sunbelt expansion team with a chromed sabre-tooth tiger logo looks ridiculous in an Original Six-influenced design, so to does a 50+ year old football team from a northern small town look ridiculous in a futuristic getup of panels and piping.

Count me as a fan of light-up numbers though.

Even in Nike's highlighter?

[IceCap]

Nike's wackiest designs exceed pushing the envelope. They've set the envelope on fire and shot the ashes into the sun.

[DeFrank]

Do you guys like my concepts (signature) or the leaked ones more?

Its a shameless plug, but hey, I'm talking about the Bills uniforms right?

[Sodboy13]

How about this analogy... Coca-cola tried to be inovative when they came out with New Coke back in the 80's. It was, of course, a complete disaster. Their "fan base" hated it. Should they have done something else "inovative" to replace it (maybe New New Coke?) or gone back to what worked before?

Except that when Coke brought back its "Original" formula, it swapped out cane sugar for cheaper high-fructose corn syrup. That got lost in the uproar and brouhaha, which some have suggested was the real reason for the introduction of "New" Coke.

Anyway, I don't think of the Bills' uniforms as being "modern", other than the timeframe in which they were introduced. The Broncos, Panthers, and Falcons, now those are "modern" designs, and ones I happen to like. If you take a good, long look at all the ugly the Bills have to offer, you'll see a bunch of straight lines on a traditional, square-shouldered jersey cut, finished with block lettering and numbering, and not even the minimal "modern" element of a small chest wordmark. The 2002-10 Bills uniform is an assortment of traditional uniform designs, slapped together in an unappealing fashion, and is a testament that, just as sure as you can have modern and beautiful, you can have traditional and ugly.

[Lights Out]

Nike's wackiest designs exceed pushing the envelope. They've set the envelope on fire and shot the ashes into the sun.

Yeah, yeah, we get it. You hate everything Nike does no matter what. Give it a rest.

And before you try to accuse me of hating all traditional uniforms, you're wrong. I only hate the boring ones.

[NJTank]

I always liked that logo better on a white helmet. This would be a awesome of this is true.

[BBTV]

It's a total cop out. It's like saying I could have a hot pocket or a steak for dinner, but I overcooked a steak once, so hot pockets are right for me. Well, that's not that great of an analogy but I'm sick so that's all I got.

Their last horrid uniform is not the archetype of modern design. One failure should not condemn an entire genre. They could very easily come up with a contemporary look that is unique and tasteful, but they took the easy way out. Not that it looks bad, but it's like giving up. They could at least have come up with something that didn't try to jam a 30-year old sleeve striping pattern onto sleeveless jerseys.

How about this analogy... Coca-cola tried to be inovative when they came out with New Coke back in the 80's. It was, of course, a complete disaster. Their "fan base" hated it. Should they have done something else "inovative" to replace it (maybe New New Coke?) or gone back to what worked before?

I don't think that one works either, because Coca-cola was a more popular product than any of the Bills former uniform sets. Let's not act like the "throwback" set was gushed over until it became the alternative to the crap that they've had for the past 9 years. Even the Kelly era. It's a joke to read the praise it gets. If it was still the uniform, and not being judged against their current crap, it would be ridiculed as "generic crap".

Coca-cola had a winner, and after new Coke, they could afford no more risks - they had to go back (sugar issues aside.) The Bills are in no such situation. I think people just want them to look good. Right now, the throwback set is the only way we've seen them look good for the past x number of years. But it's not the only way they can look good. If they came out with a contemporary uniform that looked good, I don't think anyone would complain about the throwbacks not being adopted.

[IceCap]

Nike's wackiest designs exceed pushing the envelope. They've set the envelope on fire and shot the ashes into the sun.

Yeah, yeah, we get it. You hate everything Nike does no matter what.

Not at all. Oregon would have a neat set if they only wore combos that used school colours. Nike's also proven they can kidasorta make Colts-style striping work, more so then Reebok can anyway. I'm actually excited about Nike's takeover of the NFL licence.

I only hate the Nike stuff that's eye-rappingly ugly, chief.

Give it a rest.

From you? That's a laugh riot. I think BBTV actually summed you up pretty well in another thread, so I won't bother repeating those points, but at best this is the ULTIMATE case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Right now, the throwback set is the only way we've seen them look good for the past x number of years.

I want the Bills to look like the Bills. For the kind of team they are, that means basing their look on a traditional aesthetic. Small town teams over fifty years old don't look right decked out in panelling and piping. Just like how the Predators look absurd pretending they're an old time ice hockey athletic club.

But it's not the only way they can look good. If they came out with a contemporary uniform that looked good, I don't think anyone would complain about the throwbacks not being adopted.

I think you're assuming the current look won't be contemporary. We've heard they're keeping the current logo (thankfully) and the navy, both of which make this more then a simple re-adoption of an older design. Given the current trend in new NFL uniforms, I wouldn't be surprised to see a custom number font as well.

[Lights Out]

Give it a rest.

From you? That's a laugh riot. I think BBTV actually summed you up pretty well in another thread, so I won't bother repeating those points, but at best this is the ULTIMATE case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Um...

And before you try to accuse me of hating all traditional uniforms, you're wrong. I only hate the boring ones.

---

Right now, the throwback set is the only way we've seen them look good for the past x number of years.

I want the Bills to look like the Bills. For the kind of team they are, that means basing their look on a traditional aesthetic. other teams' uniforms.

Fixed.

[ARTnSocal]

For the record I hate grey facemasks, save for rare instances. The Giants, Raiders, Cowboys, and even the Cardinals get a pass. Everyone else needs coloured masks. If the new Bills helmet has a grey mask I'll consider it a misstep.

Styles change over the years, and some styles come back, that's part of fashion. Many teams reverted back to the gray 'classic' facemask over the past 10 years, not just in the NFL but in NCAA too.

When New England wore their 80's throwbacks at Detroit on Thanksgiving, they had those old white facemasks, whereas their '63 throwback worn in 2009 for the AFL-50 celebration had the gray and looked so much better.

USC looks so much better since bringing back the gray as do the NYG. Compare the Chargers return to their white helmet, they blew it with that navy mask and not returning to the numbers on the side of the helmet. They should have went back to the '63 fulltime with the gray mask, and left the player font alone too. Their '63 is probably the most admired uniform in NFL history.

This is all a matter of opinion, but it's a virtual certainty the white helmet IS coming back to Buffalo. As a longtime BILLS fan going back to the late AFL-era I hope the mask is gray, but if not the blue from '76--86 I can live with ..... During the Chuck Knox years the blue mask looked rather good on the away white jersey which we wore at home in September and October games.

JUST NO WHITE MASK on the white helmet is all I ask.

[DGivens87]

When New England wore their 80's throwbacks at Detroit on Thanksgiving, they had those old white facemasks, whereas their '63 throwback worn in 2009 for the AFL-50 celebration had the gray and looked so much better.

Quoted for truth.

Meanwhile, I'm excited to see these new Bills unis. Can't get much worse than the monstrosities they've worn for the past nine (!!!!) seasons.

[IceCap]

Give it a rest.

From you? That's a laugh riot. I think BBTV actually summed you up pretty well in another thread, so I won't bother repeating those points, but at best this is the ULTIMATE case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Um...

And before you try to accuse me of hating all traditional uniforms, you're wrong. I only hate the boring ones.

Then allow me to respond by saying that I don't hate all contemporary designs, only the ones that look like clown suits.

Right now, the throwback set is the only way we've seen them look good for the past x number of years.

I want the Bills to look like the Bills. For the kind of team they are, that means basing their look on a traditional aesthetic. other teams' uniforms.

Fixed.

How exactly would the Bills be looking like any other team? From all accounts the look they're going to unveil is closest to the 1975-83 look (and even then we know it won't be an exact replication). That look is unlike anything worn by any other NFL team at the moment. If they went with something that invoked that era it would stand out as a unique uniform today's NFL.

The teams that people have confused the Bills with in the past, the Patriots and Giants, have both gone with looks that in no way could be confused with a Bills look that was based on their 1975-83 set.

[Buffalo]

Not to threadjack, but I think I've mentioned on here before a long, long time ago that I designed those pants. This was back in 1981 when I was the ripe old age of 13. I submitted a rather crude (by today's standards) set of drawings for an entire Colts revamp which also included a silver helmet and a silver shoulder striping scheme somewhat similar to what they eventually went with during that period.

The inspiration for my submission was the fact that the Colts had been listing silver as a team color for years in NFL media guides (which I collected at the time and wish I still had). I sent a letter to the Colts asking why it was listed but never used, and then enclosed my suggestions for how it could be used.

A few weeks later I received a letter from team VP Richard Szymanski thanking me for the letter and letting me know that they were considering making some changes to the team's uniform and that he liked some of my ideas which he would put into consideration. Although I did not ask for compensation (stupid kid), he did send me a few sheets of Colts decals which were printed at the time on what can only be described as a silver metallic mylar. I never did feel the compulsion to pursue any type of further compensation when the team rolled out "my" pants the following year. I just thought it was cool that they used an idea that I had submitted and that was enough for me.

/end threadjack

AWESOME!!

[IceCap]

For the record I hate grey facemasks, save for rare instances. The Giants, Raiders, Cowboys, and even the Cardinals get a pass. Everyone else needs coloured masks. If the new Bills helmet has a grey mask I'll consider it a misstep.

Styles change over the years, and some styles come back, that's part of fashion. Many teams reverted back to the gray 'classic' facemask over the past 10 years, not just in the NFL but in NCAA too.

Except that facemasks weren't grey due to a stylistic choice. They were grey out of necessity. Once the technology evolved to the point where they could manufacture masks in different colours most teams went with it.

So seeing as grey masks were never a stylistic choice I don't see it as a fashion to be brought back, but rather a relic of outdated technology. It would be like NHL teams mandating that goalies wear brown leather coloured pads, despite the technology to make them with colourful patterns being around for decades.

The Cowboys, Raiders, and Giants all get passes because grey/silver is part of their colour scheme. The Cardinals have never worn anything other then grey masks, so I grudgingly accept them. The Colts and Browns though? They crossed the coloured facemask Rubicon. Going back to grey just seems transparent.

JUST NO WHITE MASK on the white helmet is all I ask.

A royal facemask would look sharp, in my opinion.

[vicfurth]

Do you guys like my concepts (signature) or the leaked ones more?

Its a shameless plug, but hey, I'm talking about the Bills uniforms right?

One of the worst plugs I've seen in my eight years here.

I did like the set (I forget whom) that was made here a few pages ago. I figure if the St Louis Blues can make royal and navy work, so can the Bills.

[Gothamite]

As to gray facemasks, teams could have (and did) paint them in the late 1950s.

Gray works for me because of it's neutrality. Sometimes a colored facemask inserts itself into the design where it shouldn't.

Don't want to see all teams adopt them, but for that reason I have no inherent objection.