Bills confirm new uniform for 2011

[TFoA]

I also like what the Cards are wearing now, for some reason (I hate the Vikings' look). If they just switched the facemask to another color (preferably red) and stopped wearing the red pants, I think it would be a really solid look.

White or red facemask, and it's fixed. The helmet, at least. Those uniforms are a lost cause.

[illwauk]

I don't know what I think the Cardinals should do. I mean, they sure as hell shouldn't be doing what they are now, because they look horrible, but I don't know whether they should embrace charter franchise austerity or southwestern expansion gimmickry. One solution would be the plain cardinal-red jerseys at home and some sort of southwestern-accented white jersey, but then that gives you the dilemma of being a distinctly Phoenix team away from Phoenix and an old NFL team in front of the people who might like the southwestern stuff, not to mention wearing an ur-traditional uniform inside an aluminum bean with grass on a tray. I don't know. It's a real mess and I don't feel like dissecting this crappy team any further. Screw the Cardinals, screw Phoenix.

Why not do the southwestern thing at home and tradition on the road? Pretty much the inverse of what they did with the previous uniforms (sort of... they did put the Arizona flag on the roads). Either way, this makes me wish even more that the NFL would adopt some sort of European-style approach to uniform rules.... I'd love to see the Cardinals go into the pre-merger cities in something based on the cream/crimson/cream unis they wore in that day, but still have an appropriately modern look for at home.

[Lights Out]

This is to everyone, I'm just using OldSchool's post as a jumping off point. Why would the Cardinals going back to the simple home jersey be such a bad idea? I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, I'm just curious as to why some of us feel that all jerseys need stripes.

Because plain single-color jerseys are really boring. I think every team ought to make some effort at actual, thoughtful design. Plopping down one-color athletic block on a plain jersey doesn't take a lot of thought at all.

[DeFrank]

This is to everyone, I'm just using OldSchool's post as a jumping off point. Why would the Cardinals going back to the simple home jersey be such a bad idea? I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, I'm just curious as to why some of us feel that all jerseys need stripes.

Because plain single-color jerseys are really boring. I think every team ought to make some effort at actual, thoughtful design. Plopping down one-color athletic block on a plain jersey doesn't take a lot of thought at all.

Agreed. It just looks unfinished. Similar to the Giants Home.

I personally love the Cardinals modern look. The new pants work very well with the jerseys, and the jersey cuts do look very sharp. I'd also contend that their black alternates shouldn't be considered BFBS because of the fact that their logo features quite a bit of black, and that their home and road sets have a good amount of black trim. And IMO, they look damn good!

[DrAwesomeberry]

This is to everyone, I'm just using OldSchool's post as a jumping off point. Why would the Cardinals going back to the simple home jersey be such a bad idea? I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, I'm just curious as to why some of us feel that all jerseys need stripes.

Because plain single-color jerseys are really boring. I think every team ought to make some effort at actual, thoughtful design. Plopping down one-color athletic block on a plain jersey doesn't take a lot of thought at all.

Agreed. It just looks unfinished. Similar to the Giants Home.

I personally love the Cardinals modern look. The new pants work very well with the jerseys, and the jersey cuts do look very sharp. I'd also contend that their black alternates shouldn't be considered BFBS because of the fact that their logo features quite a bit of black, and that their home and road sets have a good amount of black trim. And IMO, they look damn good!

The reason they are called the Cardinals is because of their red jerseys.That is the first jersey in their history to not have red or white as a predominant color.

[DeFrank]

This is to everyone, I'm just using OldSchool's post as a jumping off point. Why would the Cardinals going back to the simple home jersey be such a bad idea? I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, I'm just curious as to why some of us feel that all jerseys need stripes.

Because plain single-color jerseys are really boring. I think every team ought to make some effort at actual, thoughtful design. Plopping down one-color athletic block on a plain jersey doesn't take a lot of thought at all.

Agreed. It just looks unfinished. Similar to the Giants Home.

I personally love the Cardinals modern look. The new pants work very well with the jerseys, and the jersey cuts do look very sharp. I'd also contend that their black alternates shouldn't be considered BFBS because of the fact that their logo features quite a bit of black, and that their home and road sets have a good amount of black trim. And IMO, they look damn good!

The reason they are called the Cardinals is because of their red jerseys.That is the first jersey in their history to not have red or white as a predominant color.

Ok, that's fine, but it's not like they don't have black in their entire identity. It's very prevalent, and I see no wrong in having a third jersey. They can still be the Cardinals and have a black jersey. Uniforms progress, colors are added, etc.

[Lights Out]

I'm one of the most "modern" guys on here and I can't stand the Cardinals' current uniforms. They're an overpiped, mismatched mess that could theoretically be used by any team, just like the Patriots' uniforms. The black uniforms are especially horrendous.

[WSU151]

They're an overpiped, mismatched mess that could theoretically be used by any team

The vast majority of NFL jersey templates could theoretically be used by any team.

[TruColor]

I'm one of the most "modern" guys on here and I can't stand the Cardinals' current uniforms. They're an overpiped, mismatched mess that could theoretically be used by any team, just like the Patriots' uniforms. The black uniforms are especially horrendous.

As a die-hard Cardinals fan for 40-plus years, I've been trying to stay out of this one...I'm not crazy about the Cards going with a "trendy" design, but have wanted the team to add more Black to the uniforms since the early '70s. I MUCH prefer the current look to the old versions, and keep in mind that they went to a Super Bowl in the current unis.

But I have to ask - what exactly is mismatched about the current unis? And let's all keep in mind that the White sections under the arms are supposed to represent "wing detail" (stated at the uniform unveiling in '05) - I would say that detail alone should make them more than unique, and not as transferable to be used by other teams.

I also have to say that yes - Black has been a part of the Cardinals identity since the Chicago days...it hasn't always been used on the uniforms, but it certainly has been used by almost all of the various graphics and logos used by the team. Black trim was prevalent on all of the White jersey designs from the '60s through 1995. They tried using Black trim on the 1970 Red uniforms, but removed it because it wasn't very visible from the stands and on TV (the Cardinal Red was a bit darker in those days):

And - as most of you know - I HATE the Gray facemasks...I have been hoping for either a Red or Black facemask ever since the Chargers and Chiefs started the colored facemask trend. Back in 1984, I had a long phone conversation with the long-time Cardinals equipment manager. He told me that back in the early '70s when the first color-matched facemasks were made available, he put together three prototype helmets (Red facemask, White facemask and Black facemask) and presented them to Bill Bidwill - the owner of the Cards. Mr. Bidwill said (paraphrasing) "let's just wait and see what the other teams do".

[BlueSky]

The helmet is part of the uniform; it's more then a piece of equipment. Why does it follow that the facemaks has to be part of the uniform as well? Like I pointed out, most cages in ice hockey are neutral colours. They could colour-code them to match uniforms, but they don't. Why? While the helmet or goalie mask may be part of the uniform, the cage itself isn't. It's just a piece of equipment. The same thing can be said for facemasks in football.

Because it's mounted on the helmet? Hey, just a guess. You know, the same reason the grille is part of a car?

And the grille is usually, silver, grey or black, regardless of what the color scheme of the car is.

I know very little about chess BlueSky, but I think Andrew just took your queen.

Wish I could argue that one but I think I'll quit while I'm behind. Though to be fair I was only answering Icecap's assertion about the mask not being part of the helmet.

[IceCap]

The helmet is part of the uniform; it's more then a piece of equipment. Why does it follow that the facemaks has to be part of the uniform as well? Like I pointed out, most cages in ice hockey are neutral colours. They could colour-code them to match uniforms, but they don't. Why? While the helmet or goalie mask may be part of the uniform, the cage itself isn't. It's just a piece of equipment. The same thing can be said for facemasks in football.

Because it's mounted on the helmet? Hey, just a guess. You know, the same reason the grille is part of a car?

And the grille is usually, silver, grey or black, regardless of what the color scheme of the car is.

I know very little about chess BlueSky, but I think Andrew just took your queen.

Wish I could argue that one but I think I'll quit while I'm behind. Though to be fair I was only answering Icecap's assertion about the mask not being part of the helmet.

I never said it wasn't part of the helmet. I said it wasn't, or doesn't necessarily have to be considered, part of the uniform. The chinstrap is also part of the helmet but the NFL seems to consider it simply a piece of equipment rather then part of the uniform.

There's a distinction between being part of the helmet and part of the uniform. The facemask is, unquestionably, the former. I've never said otherwise. It's the latter distinction that's up for debate.

[Lights Out]

But I have to ask - what exactly is mismatched about the current unis?

Maybe mismatched was the wrong word, but it looks like a grab-bag of different standard "modern" elements thrown together in an attempt to look trendy, and the look doesn't really flow. I'm all for unique uniforms, but they have to actually be unique. Other than the wing detail (which is the worst part of the uniform, IMO), the Cardinals' current uniforms look vaguely like the unholy love child of these uniforms:

[ARTnSocal]

This 'BILLS' thread sure has been hijacked alot ...

CARDS newer uni's from 2005 are fine IMO .... EXCEPT that away jersey. Too similar in style to Buffalo's away jersey mistake of 2002.

Get rid of those red shoulders and side piping on the road jersey and they'll look good in red pants ... and I'll repeat myself by stating that I like the gray mask on white helmets.

[illwauk]

Until now, I never really thought of how similar the Cards and Falcons looks are... and both happen to be named after birds at that.

This is to everyone, I'm just using OldSchool's post as a jumping off point. Why would the Cardinals going back to the simple home jersey be such a bad idea? I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, I'm just curious as to why some of us feel that all jerseys need stripes.

I think for me, it's that despite being a charter member of the NFL, they really don't have the history to be able to pull off a minimalist look like, say, the Giants. Their only undisputed title and greatest player in franchise history, Charley Trippi, are both from the Chicago days and while Trippi is correctly looked at as one of the all-time greats, he just doesn't have the name recognition or folklore of other pre-merger stars like Don Hutson, Sammy Baugh, Bronko Nagurski, Marion Motley or Otto Graham. Then you have no championships from the St. Louis era and "stars" like Terry Metcalf, Roy Green and J.T. Smith. Good players for sure, but hardly guys that are gonna motivate a rookie in minicamp to work harder to be part of their lineage. Now on top of it all, they play in Phoenix... arguably the least-traditional pro sports city in all of North America and most definitely of all the markets that have teams in all of the Big 4 now that Atlanta is no longer included. It would (and did) just look weird for a team from there to wear something so plain.

[BlueSky]

The helmet is part of the uniform; it's more then a piece of equipment. Why does it follow that the facemaks has to be part of the uniform as well? Like I pointed out, most cages in ice hockey are neutral colours. They could colour-code them to match uniforms, but they don't. Why? While the helmet or goalie mask may be part of the uniform, the cage itself isn't. It's just a piece of equipment. The same thing can be said for facemasks in football.

Because it's mounted on the helmet? Hey, just a guess. You know, the same reason the grille is part of a car?

And the grille is usually, silver, grey or black, regardless of what the color scheme of the car is.

I know very little about chess BlueSky, but I think Andrew just took your queen.

Wish I could argue that one but I think I'll quit while I'm behind. Though to be fair I was only answering Icecap's assertion about the mask not being part of the helmet.

I never said it wasn't part of the helmet. I said it wasn't, or doesn't necessarily have to be considered, part of the uniform. The chinstrap is also part of the helmet but the NFL seems to consider it simply a piece of equipment rather then part of the uniform.

There's a distinction between being part of the helmet and part of the uniform. The facemask is, unquestionably, the former. I've never said otherwise. It's the latter distinction that's up for debate.

My thinking tends to follow logic, i.e. if A=B and B=C, then A=C. So if the helmet is part of the uni and the facemask is part of the helmet, then the facemask is part of the uni. If we ignore that train of thought and just debate aesthetics, in most cases, a color-coordinated item generally looks better than a generic one. That's why color-coordinated bumpers (yeah, not grilles, fine) are often found on the mid-to-upper level trim packages for a given model of vehicle and not on the base model.

So in most cases, the mask looks better if considered a part of the uniform and is color-coordinated with the rest of it.

How well things are coordinated, well, that's another discussion. Some liked the Vikings with white masks, where imo they look way better with purple to match the helmet 'cause the white is too much contrast and distracts from the horn. But that's just my opinion.

Kramer wore all three colors of mask they used btw...

[DeFrank]

I guess I like modern pants a lot more than modern jersey cuts. I like the white on the caridnals under sleeve, but the falcons black undersleeve is really ugly.

[oldschoolvikings]

The helmet is part of the uniform; it's more then a piece of equipment. Why does it follow that the facemaks has to be part of the uniform as well? Like I pointed out, most cages in ice hockey are neutral colours. They could colour-code them to match uniforms, but they don't. Why? While the helmet or goalie mask may be part of the uniform, the cage itself isn't. It's just a piece of equipment. The same thing can be said for facemasks in football.

Because it's mounted on the helmet? Hey, just a guess. You know, the same reason the grille is part of a car?

And the grille is usually, silver, grey or black, regardless of what the color scheme of the car is.

I know very little about chess BlueSky, but I think Andrew just took your queen.

Wish I could argue that one but I think I'll quit while I'm behind. Though to be fair I was only answering Icecap's assertion about the mask not being part of the helmet.

I never said it wasn't part of the helmet. I said it wasn't, or doesn't necessarily have to be considered, part of the uniform. The chinstrap is also part of the helmet but the NFL seems to consider it simply a piece of equipment rather then part of the uniform.

There's a distinction between being part of the helmet and part of the uniform. The facemask is, unquestionably, the former. I've never said otherwise. It's the latter distinction that's up for debate.

My thinking tends to follow logic, i.e. if A=B and B=C, then A=C. So if the helmet is part of the uni and the facemask is part of the helmet, then the facemask is part of the uni. If we ignore that train of thought and just debate aesthetics, in most cases, a color-coordinated item generally looks better than a generic one. That's why color-coordinated bumpers (yeah, not grilles, fine) are often found on the mid-to-upper level trim packages for a given model of vehicle and not on the base model.

So in most cases, the mask looks better if considered a part of the uniform and is color-coordinated with the rest of it.

How well things are coordinated, well, that's another discussion. Some liked the Vikings with white masks, where imo they look way better with purple to match the helmet 'cause the white is too much contrast and distracts from the horn. But that's just my opinion.

Kramer wore all three colors of mask they used btw...

I actually like the gray significantly better than the white.

[STL FANATIC]

I'm one of the most "modern" guys on here and I can't stand the Cardinals' current uniforms. They're an overpiped, mismatched mess that could theoretically be used by any team, just like the Patriots' uniforms. The black uniforms are especially horrendous.

The Cardinals uniforms are actually one of the few templates in the league that have more meaning to that team than they would with any other. The Arizona flag pattern on the sleeves is a perfect example of the thoughtful design you were asking for in your previous post. Could they turn the volume down a notch? Sure. The whole package isn't perfect. But it is decent and its VERY thoughtful and team specific.

[whitedawg22]

As a hockey player, I think the cage is typically colored silver/black because it gives the best visibility. I wouldn't want a bright red or blue etc. color 3" from my eyes distracting me from the puck.

Pretty sure the same thing would apply in football, no?

Well, the best passing offense in the history of the NFL was the 2007 Patriots, who didn't exactly have a neutral-colored facemask...

[Lights Out]

Also, the previous best offense ever, the 1998 Vikings, wore purple facemasks: