Bills confirm new uniform for 2011

[JohnnySeoul]

If this is the direction they're going I'm not digging the look. I understand the tradition of the team, but the look is just not working for me. I don't like the stripes, on the sleeves and especially on the socks, it looks like they're stuck in a 70's/80's time warp. And why a gray face mask, why not a blue or red one, so it can actually match the uniform.

To me, it's a perfect blend of the Jim Kelly and OJ Simpon eras. They wanted to tapped into both and it is a success. My only gripe (and it's a small one) is that I think the blue facemask would've looked better over the gray. But to be honest, the grey works well. LOVE these uni's!!!

Problems with the new set (provided Madden was accurate):

1. Single layer numbers with no outline (not only would it look better with a red outline, but both eras they combined had a red outline). This is the most inexcusable blunder;

2. No blue facemask (although grey doesn't look bad, this was a no brainer);

3. Blue pants (which will lead to ridiculousness of a traditional look messed up with blue monochrome);

4. Not making white socks to pair with blue pants (the OJ era blue pants were paired with white socks, too);

5. Thin white stripes added to helmet so it doesn't match the pants (possible);

6. Silly wordmark below collar.

Hopefully they come to their senses and at least add the red outline and drop the blue pants/add white socks after the first season. Those seem minor enough, though I imagine the helmet won't be altered for a long time.

Completely understandable gripes, Roman.

Now that the cat is out of the bag, I suppose some of us can now be more open.

1. From what I saw in the packaging (it was still folded when I saw them), there didn't seem to be an outline. But I could be wrong and it may be there. My only thinking is that in conjunction with the collar and sleeve stripes, they wanted to keep the number simple and not make the uni look somewhat complicated.

2. Agreed

3. Don't expect to see blue/blue again with this uni change. I believe it's dead and buried.

4. I only saw 2 pairs (the other was all red and I hope that was only a prototype), but Reebok normally gives a team 2 to 3 different pairs. So a white version probably does exist. Now if they wear the white socks is another question.

5. I hope I was wrong with this one. I only saw 3 helmets (all 3 were sideways) and I just assumed they would keep the thin white stripes from the past, but it doesn't match the rest of the uniform.

6. This one the first things I noticed in December. Teams like the Bills, Browns, Redskins, and etc do not need this. Their uniforms and helmets are unique enough to be able to tell who they are. Wordmarks in the NFL are tacky and cheap looking.

[BBTV]

6. This one the first things I noticed in December. Teams like the Bills, Browns, Redskins, and etc do not need this. Their uniforms and helmets are unique enough to be able to tell who they are. Wordmarks in the NFL are tacky and cheap looking.

The Bills, Browns, Redskins, etc. are exactly who needs the wordmark under the collar. Otherwise I could just sell a white jersey with blue numbers and generic stripes and some fool might think it's a Bills jersey. These jerseys don't have any team logos or other trademarked marks on them (I don't count the NFL shield because I don't think the average fan really cares about that). Putting the wordmark on there makes it so if a counterfeiter makes a jersey and puts that wordmark on it, now they're clearly illegally reproducing a TMd mark without a license. Hope I got my terms right.

[DeFrank]

Really?? I think wordmarks on uniforms are great on jerseys. What would we say about the saying "its about the name on the front, not the back"? Most teams have a wordmark, correct?

[JohnnySeoul]

Putting the wordmark on there makes it so if a counterfeiter makes a jersey and puts that wordmark on it, now they're clearly illegally reproducing a TMd mark without a license. Hope I got my terms right.

Valid point. I guess wordmarks on a NFL jersey is just a personal pet peeve on mine.

[TheOldRoman]

6. This one the first things I noticed in December. Teams like the Bills, Browns, Redskins, and etc do not need this. Their uniforms and helmets are unique enough to be able to tell who they are. Wordmarks in the NFL are tacky and cheap looking.

The Bills, Browns, Redskins, etc. are exactly who needs the wordmark under the collar. Otherwise I could just sell a white jersey with blue numbers and generic stripes and some fool might think it's a Bills jersey. These jerseys don't have any team logos or other trademarked marks on them (I don't count the NFL shield because I don't think the average fan really cares about that). Putting the wordmark on there makes it so if a counterfeiter makes a jersey and puts that wordmark on it, now they're clearly illegally reproducing a TMd mark without a license. Hope I got my terms right.

If some fool was going to think that was a Bills jersey, he would think so regardless of an inch-tall wordmark on the chest. Besides, the NFL's problem isn't a store selling generic jerseys looking like NFL jerseys. The problem is counterfeiters, who have no problem reproducing wordmarks on the chest. No team needs them and they detract from the look.

[daschuck77]

I really hope they bust out a pair of blue striped white socks for the blue pants. Even the red 'prototype' socks would work better with the blue pants. I don't want to see a Ravens and Browns move with the awful black pants/socks and brown pants/socks mistake. I hope the socks don't ruin this otherwise long overdue uniform set.

Was there a good enough screen shot of the away jersey with the socks visible?? Is there really going to be a blue/red shoe option for the uniforms as well? Is there actually Navy trim involved in the uniform?

Red socks would work with the away set as opposed to the primary blue sock that we see now.

Striped Royal pants with striped royal socks = suck.

Monochrome Royal blue with the blue socks = double suck.

[Sec19Row53]

Really?? I think wordmarks on uniforms are great on jerseys. What would we say about the saying "its about the name on the front, not the back"? Most teams have a wordmark, correct?

I thought that quote was used about college basketball. I think that wordmarks on football jerseys are just crutches for poor designs, in that you ought to be able to tell the team from the colors and striping. HOWEVER, I do respect BBTV's assertion that they are designed to minimize counterfeiting.

[WideRight]

SO are we thinking that the reference to navy trim was a red herring? I still think some hints of navy, perhaps between the royal and red on the numbers or stripes, would be good. It looks, based on this, like a pure faux-back attempt with no real effort to modernize the older designs (especially the sleeve stripes, which you all know I just don't think work right on today's jerseys.)

Still 1000x better than the currents, and I will still buy a set but now I have to wonder if it is worth it to buy

my Jake Locker (praying for this) jersey, or just buy one that says Ferguson or Cribbs.

[oldschoolvikings]

Its the players game, son.

Wrong, its the fan's game. Players are here today, gone tomorrow.

And when it comes to aesthetic decisions, they're idiots.

[Jinjoe]

Its the players game, son.

Wrong, its the fan's game. Players are here today, gone tomorrow.

And when it comes to aesthetic decisions, they're idiots.

They're idiots because you don't like their taste in design? Kind of harsh isn't it.

[oldschoolvikings]

Its the players game, son.

Wrong, its the fan's game. Players are here today, gone tomorrow.

And when it comes to aesthetic decisions, they're idiots.

They're idiots because you don't like their taste in design? Kind of harsh isn't it.

I said when it comes to aesthetic decisions they're idiots. Still harsh, sure... but IMO not as harsh as forcing me to look at the Bills uniform for the last 5 years.

[RyanMcD29]

The new jerseys look alright. The white helmets look better than expected, but I think I said this a couple of months ago but I think having a red helmet in a division with 2 white helmets and a grey would've been a better path to take than a third white. Seeing it in the design, though, I think the white looks better than having the red. I don't mind the use of blue pants, as long as they're on the road. I feel like all-white uniforms are too plain (for instance I'd much rather have the Jets go white/white/green than white/white/white) and the blue works well with the white jerseys. Just as long as they don't go monochrome, of course

[Gothamite]

Stop what? I'm not the one to officially spoil it...Madden 12 did. When I created the 2011 template and put the Bills on my main page, I didn't think anyone would notice or really looked at that page. Once they did, I had to deny that that's what they were going to resemble. The cat is out of the bag now.

So... you were given an advance look at information which was supposed to be kept confidential until release, and your response was to put it one of the most popular website on the Internet, which is visited by hundreds of millions of people worldwide, hoping nobody would notice?

Okay, but that seems to be a really good way to lose that access.

[Gothamite]

SO are we thinking that the reference to navy trim was a red herring?

Nope. I think they'll definitely incorporate at least a touch of navy, if only so they can keep selling navy clothing to fans.

[daschuck77]

Looks like at :17 or again at :20 when Whitner is making a tackle you see the away jerseys will have blue socks to go along with the blue uniforms. Why do they think that looks right?

Best viewed in HD at full screen.

[Jinjoe]

Its the players game, son.

Wrong, its the fan's game. Players are here today, gone tomorrow.

And when it comes to aesthetic decisions, they're idiots.

They're idiots because you don't like their taste in design? Kind of harsh isn't it.

I said when it comes to aesthetic decisions they're idiots. Still harsh, sure... but IMO not as harsh as forcing me to look at the Bills uniform for the last 5 years.

Hey I'm sure someone can say the same about your ability to decide what is a good look and what isn't.

[TheOldRoman]

Hey I'm sure someone can say the same about your ability to decide what is a good look and what isn't.

And they'd be wrong. Look at the various trash that passes for college uniforms because it "looks cool". When the Giants debuted their red jerseys a few years back, one of the players said some stupidity like, "these are tight, but we need some red pants to go with them." THAT is what you are dealing with. Athletes should have no input into uniforms.

[BBTV]

6. This one the first things I noticed in December. Teams like the Bills, Browns, Redskins, and etc do not need this. Their uniforms and helmets are unique enough to be able to tell who they are. Wordmarks in the NFL are tacky and cheap looking.

The Bills, Browns, Redskins, etc. are exactly who needs the wordmark under the collar. Otherwise I could just sell a white jersey with blue numbers and generic stripes and some fool might think it's a Bills jersey. These jerseys don't have any team logos or other trademarked marks on them (I don't count the NFL shield because I don't think the average fan really cares about that). Putting the wordmark on there makes it so if a counterfeiter makes a jersey and puts that wordmark on it, now they're clearly illegally reproducing a TMd mark without a license. Hope I got my terms right.

If some fool was going to think that was a Bills jersey, he would think so regardless of an inch-tall wordmark on the chest. Besides, the NFL's problem isn't a store selling generic jerseys looking like NFL jerseys. The problem is counterfeiters, who have no problem reproducing wordmarks on the chest. No team needs them and they detract from the look.

What I meant was that it's not necessarily blatently illegal to just sell a generic jersey that doesn't have any ripped off marks on it (I think you could argue that it's still playing off of a likeness, but it's probably not black and white) but if the jersey includes a wordmark that is counterfeited, then it is obviously illegal. So they're basically saying "if you're going to steal from us, at least break some law that we can go after you for."

Is anybody who sells a black jersey with silver numbers a counterfeiter? Probably not. But if the Raiders had a patch or wordmark on it, and that was included in the jersey, then there you go.

[Jinjoe]

Hey I'm sure someone can say the same about your ability to decide what is a good look and what isn't.

And they'd be wrong. Look at the various trash that passes for college uniforms because it "looks cool". When the Giants debuted their red jerseys a few years back, one of the players said some stupidity like, "these are tight, but we need some red pants to go with them." THAT is what you are dealing with. Athletes should have no input into uniforms.

Can you provide a few examples of this "various trash" that you speak of. I don't think the red pants would've been a good look either, but come on it's a stupid comment because you don't like the look. Really, what makes your opinion more valuable than theirs. They play in the uniforms but they should never have any input in the uniforms? That is ridiculous.

[JohnnySeoul]

Stop what? I'm not the one to officially spoil it...Madden 12 did. When I created the 2011 template and put the Bills on my main page, I didn't think anyone would notice or really looked at that page. Once they did, I had to deny that that's what they were going to resemble. The cat is out of the bag now.

So... you were given an advance look at information which was supposed to be kept confidential until release, and your response was to put it one of the most popular website on the Internet, which is visited by hundreds of millions of people worldwide, hoping nobody would notice?

Okay, but that seems to be a really good way to lose that access.

I said my own Wiki-page, NOT the Buffalo Bills Wiki-page. The 2011 Bills template isn't going on their page until it is official. "Hundreds of millions of people worldwide" do not look at my personal Wiki-page, but thank you.

Plus, if you saw my original 2011 Bills template, you would've seen that I purposely didn't make it exactly like they will look, so I never spoiled anything.