Bills confirm new uniform for 2011

[ARTnSocal]

With all of this charging buffalo vs. standing buffalo talk, and the addition of three more logos to the whole uniform, why couldn't the two coexist? I like both logos, but five of one is too many. They should've put the standing buffalo on the hips, maybe outlined or encircled as to not clash with the red stripe.

Jeff, I think the two logos are too similar to coexist on the same uniform. It only seems to work when a team uses their alternate logo, not their throwback. Kinda like Minnesota whose helmet logo is the Viking horns, yet the shoulder sleeve & upper nameplate area is the image of a Viking, their alternate logo.

It worked on the Cardinals prior uniforms too, as that was their alternate logo was based off the AZ flag .... With us I think it would look bizarre, kinda like if NE put Pat-Patriot on their pants and shoulder sleeve.

Adding the wordmark below the NFL shield was cool, even the logo on the upper pants stripe was fine, but putting the logo above the players nameplate on the back ... well I thought was going over the top.

[Somppi]

No offense to either of you, but it is the 10th-largest stadium in the NFL. Really the only perceptions of the stadium being small are when you're outside of the seating bowl.

No Jeff .... It's the 6th largest of the 31 NFL stadiums

I heard the browns are going to return to this look for away games since they will be wearing white on white at home this season

Why would a team nicknamed the 'Browns' wear white on white uniforms at home? There'll be more orange as the secondary color than brown.

I like their brown jersey / white pants look .....

Because they're not named after the color brown, but the coach Paul Brown

[BlueSky]

I assume those of you who favor the charging buffalo also think the Cardinals & Dolphins need new, more intimidating renditions of their mascots? Or are menacing frowns enough?

The Cardinals and Dolphins currently use fantastic updates of their "classic" marks.

No one said they don't, though that's definitely a matter of opinion. My point was to compare their logos, still relatively passive even with the frowns, to the standing buffalo since the main complaint against it seems to be that it's not aggressive enough. So if the Bills just add a cartoony scowl to the standing buffalo, it'll pass muster?

[IceCap]

I assume those of you who favor the charging buffalo also think the Cardinals & Dolphins need new, more intimidating renditions of their mascots? Or are menacing frowns enough?

The Cardinals and Dolphins currently use fantastic updates of their "classic" marks.

No one said they don't, though that's definitely a matter of opinion. My point was to compare their logos, still relatively passive even with the frowns, to the standing buffalo since the main complaint against it seems to be that it's not aggressive enough. So if the Bills just add a cartoony scowl to the standing buffalo, it'll pass muster?

No. The Cardinals and Dolphins logos are more then just static single colour blobs.

The differences between these logos....

and this logo

should not need to be explained.

I get that you're looking for an argument though.

As for how to improve the standing buffalo while keeping its touted simplicity in tact? Remove the player form this logo...

...and you have a good starting point.

[whitedawg22]

I assume those of you who favor the charging buffalo also think the Cardinals & Dolphins need new, more intimidating renditions of their mascots? Or are menacing frowns enough?

The Cardinals and Dolphins currently use fantastic updates of their "classic" marks.

No one said they don't, though that's definitely a matter of opinion. My point was to compare their logos, still relatively passive even with the frowns, to the standing buffalo since the main complaint against it seems to be that it's not aggressive enough. So if the Bills just add a cartoony scowl to the standing buffalo, it'll pass muster?

No. The Cardinals and Dolphins logos are more then just static single colour blobs.

The differences between these logos....

and this logo

should not need to be explained.

I get that you're looking for an argument though.

As for how to improve the standing buffalo while keeping its touted simplicity in tact? Remove the player form this logo...

...and you have a good starting point.

The Colts, Giants, Cowboys, and Bears seem to get along fine with "single color blobs."

[IceCap]

The Colts use a horseshoe. It is what it is. You can't really convey motion with a horseshoe. They use the logo to the extant that it can be used. With a buffalo you have the option to convey motion, charging specificially. A static, grazing buffalo seems so dull. Like I said, I prefer classic looks over modern looks most of the time, but the static buffalo doesn't come across as classic in the same way that the Colts' logo does. It just comes across as old and boring.

The Cowboys use a double outline around the star, which goes a long way to making it stand out as a logo, as opposed to just a single colour star.

The Bears (who also use the double outline by the way) and the Giants both use letter-based logos. Not the same thing as a static buffalo-shaped blob.

[hawk36]

As for how to improve the standing buffalo while keeping its touted simplicity in tact? Remove the player form this logo...

...and you have a good starting point.

He's a uni concept I did years ago. Forget the uni but the helmet with charging buffalo sans stripe, I think, looks good.

[IceCap]

The buffalo could use his tail back

Other then that, it's a huge step in the right direction of bringing the single colour buffalo into the modern era.

[ARTnSocal]

No one said they don't, though that's definitely a matter of opinion. My point was to compare their logos, still relatively passive even with the frowns, to the standing buffalo since the main complaint against it seems to be that it's not aggressive enough. So if the Bills just add a cartoony scowl to the standing buffalo, it'll pass muster?

No. The Cardinals and Dolphins logos are more then just static single colour blobs.

The differences between these logos....

and this logo

should not need to be explained.

I get that you're looking for an argument though.

As for how to improve the standing buffalo while keeping its touted simplicity in tact? Remove the player form this logo...

...and you have a good starting point.

. .

I didn't perceive it as him looking for an argument, appeared to me like he called you out and asked you a simple question which was met with a condescending response.

A Cardinal and a Dolphin being constructed using one color, I don't see how that could be done. A Bison was. It was decided in '74 to start from scratch rather than polish up the original one. Some things are classic and aren't meant to be modernized. They considered that one of them and put it in the archives for 30 years.

People who post on this forum make up less than 1% of all NFL fans. We're all uniform geeks. We notice things that that other 99% usually don't ever notice when it comes to uniforms and logos

The Cards did the most modest alteration to their logo to give it more of a scowl, the Dolphins polished up the Dolphin and removed the sunburst rays from their logo. I can guarantee that that vast majority of football watchers didn't even notice those changes, only the Cards ugly new away jerseys.

In the early 90s the Jets added some black to their scheme, facemask and outline to the green striping. Bills played them away early that season and right as the game started I pointed out to my friends that the Jets got new uni's ... Nobody else noticed and I was asked "what's different about 'em"?

When the Jets returned to their 60s / early 70s look in '98, people instantly noticed. What most didn't notice was that it was tweaked. They didn't notice the logo was no longer pointed and was now oval-shaped, that the green was darkened, different color facemask, What I didn't notice until way later was that the football lacing in the logo was moved.

You don't have to have a multi-color logo or a scow on an animal / bird (or whatever) for it to be a good logo. Detroit's used to look like a big glob of Honolulu Blue, that did need a different color for the outline and to be touched it up with white streaks inside to make it look Lion-like which it lacked previously and now does, even tho' Lions aren't Honolulu Blue, and Bisons aren't red or blue.

Dallas, San Diego, Oilers, and Buffalo have the top-rated throwbacks on the popularity scale, and 3 of those 4 are singular colored logos. Not everything has to have modern-day graphics of sophistication to look more superior, least I don't think so.

The alternate Bills logo from the late 60s with the football player in the forefront of the globby Bison was heavily disliked and very sparingly seen back then. It looked like a big glob of red with a football player in the forefront. They discarded it during the merger and haven't used an alternate logo since. Whoever designed that thing should have been shot. .. There's nothing to work with using that image.

When viewing the '62-'73 grazing Bison logo in one-color it clearly looks like a Buffalo ... it doesn't need any tweaking like Detroit's did. I'll admit the red streak is humorous on the charging Bison, but since it's a blue bison it was meant to be more cartoon-like than actual.

If actual was desired they would have gone with something like this, but it would have clashed with the royal blue w/ red trim color scheme.

[Gothamite]

I actually like that little guy.

A 3/4 perspective buffalo based on that, simplified and in the Bills' color scheme, could make a great helmet logo.

[IceCap]

I didn't perceive it as him looking for an argument, appeared to me like he called you out and asked you a simple question which was met with a condescending response.

He tried to say a single colour logo that lacks detail was somehow on the same level as two multi-coloured logos with a fair amount of detail in a desperate attempt to make a point. Sounds argumentative to me.

A Cardinal and a Dolphin being constructed using one color, I don't see how that could be done. A Bison was.

Yes, the bison was. And it looked terrible. It was passable in the 60s, but unlike a lot of looks from that era it simply hasn't aged well. It's a static, dull, blob of colour. hawk36 showed that it's capable of working with a few tweaks, but as-is it cannot stand as a logo for a NFL team in the year 2011.

The Cards did the most modest alteration to their logo to give it more of a scowl, the Dolphins polished up the Dolphin and removed the sunburst rays from their logo. I can guarantee that that vast majority of football watchers didn't even notice those changes. In the early 90s the Jets added some black to their scheme, facemask and outline to the green striping. Bills played them away early that season and right as the game started I pointed out to my friends that the Jets got new uni's ... Nobody else noticed and I was asked "what's different about 'em"?

When the Jets returned to their 60s / early 70s look in '98, people instantly noticed. What most didn't notice was that it was tweaked. They didn't notice the logo was no longer pointed and was now oval-shaped, that the green was darkened, different color facemask, What I didn't notice until way later was that the football lacing in the logo was moved.

Ok. What that has to do with anything is beyond me.

You don't have to have a multi-color logo or a scow on an animal / bird (or whatever) for it to be a good logo. Detroit's used to look like a big glob of Honolulu Blue, that did need a different color for the outline and to be touched it up with white streaks inside to make it look Lion-like which it lacked previously and now does, even tho' Lions aren't Honolulu Blue, and Bisons aren't red or blue.

The Lions' logo, prior to the latest update, wasn't much better then the Bills' standing buffalo logo. It was slightly better only because it depicted a lion in motion. The Bills' standing bison was just...standing.

Dallas, San Diego, Oilers, and Buffalo have the top-rated throwbacks on the popularity scale, and 3 of those 4 are singular colored logos. Not everything has to have modern-day graphics of sophistication to look more superior, least I don't think so.

There's a difference between a logo working on a twice a year throwback alternate and working as the team's full time logo.

The alternate Bills logo from the late 60s with the football player in the forefront of the globby Bison was heavily disliked. It looked like a big glob of red with a football player in the forefront. They discarded it during the merger and haven't used an alternate logo since. Whoever designed that thing should be shot. There's nothing to work with using that image.

It depicts a bison in motion, and hawk36's concept shows that the idea of a single colour bison in motion has some currency behind it. Of course the football player would be scrapped. It's preferably to the even more blob-like standing bison.

When viewing the '62-'73 grazing Bison logo in one-color it clearly looks like a Buffalo ...

It doesn't look any more like a buffalo then the one you discarded as terrible. While it looks like a buffalo, that's not enough to make it a good logo. It looks like clip art. It looks static. It looks dull.

it doesn't need any tweaking like Detroit's did.

Disagree. The Lions logo (pre-update) at least depicted its subject matter in motion.

I'll admit the red streak is humorous on the charging Bison, but since it's a blue bison it was meant to be more cartoon-like than actual.

Please. A blue bison is no more cartoon-like then a red bison.

[BlueSky]

@ ArtnSoCal - yeah, what you said. Seriously, good points.

@ Ice Cap...good grief. Here we go again. Do you even read my posts before you start making baseless accusations? This is very...simple...logic.

I said:

1. The main complaint about the standing buffalo seems to be that it's passive.

2. The Cards and Dolphins added scowls to their logos because they were, we can presume, also seen as too passive.

3. I then asked whether the standing buffalo would be acceptable if it too got a frown. Yes, it was tongue-in-cheek, but nowhere did I say the logos were "on the same level" or attempt in any way to compare their aesthetics or anything else other than the perception of passivity vs. aggressiveness.

You've got to be the only one who read that and started flailing around screaming "HE'S COMPARING THOSE LOGOS AND LOOKING FOR AN ARGUMENT! WELL BLUESKY, YOU F***ED WITH THE WRONG UNI GEEK THIS TIME!!"

At least I hope you're the only one.

Okay, a slight exaggeration but you get my point.

On a more pleasant note, I agree completely about the charging red buffalo with the player removed. Saw a pic of a concept helmet done that way and it was fantastic but unfortunately it wasn't a pic one can link to.

Here's one for you guys...that buffalo gif gave me an idea...how long till we see a helmet with some kind of electronic surface that would allow an animated logo?

[IceCap]

@ Ice Cap...good grief. Here we go again. Do you even read my posts before you start making baseless accusations? This is very...simple...logic.

I said:

1. The main complaint about the standing buffalo seems to be that it's passive.

2. The Cards and Dolphins added scowls to their logos because they were, we can presume, also seen as too passive.

Nope. The Dolphins didn't update their logo because it was "passive," it's because the old logo was starting to show its age. The pre-1997 Dolphins logo was, like Pat the Patriot, a convoluted drawing. It needed to be streamlined, and it was. The old logo being passive was not, I think, a major factor. As for the Cardinals, the the old logo was scowling too, so I don't think the old logo being "passive" was a factor. The update simply streamlined the image. It wasn't made any fiercer, if you really think about it.

So no. Your step-by-step explanation falls short. The Dolphins and Cardinals did not update due their old logos being "passive."

3. I then asked whether the standing buffalo would be acceptable if it too got a frown. Yes, it was tongue-in-cheek, but nowhere did I say the logos were "on the same level" or attempt in any way to compare their aesthetics or anything else other than the perception of passivity vs. aggressiveness.

No, a frown would not help the standing bison. What would help it would be if it was depicted as leaping, as to convey motion.

You've got to be the only one who read that and started flailing around screaming "HE'S COMPARING THOSE LOGOS AND LOOKING FOR AN ARGUMENT! WELL BLUESKY, YOU F***ED WITH THE WRONG UNI GEEK THIS TIME!!"

At least I hope you're the only one.

Stay classy

Not once did I "flail" or "scream." Stop over-reacting to people disagreeing or misunderstanding your posts. Sometimes, these things happen

On a more pleasant note, I agree completely about the charging red buffalo with the player removed. Saw a pic of a concept helmet done that way and it was fantastic but unfortunately it wasn't a pic one can link to.

So you agree with my assessment that the single colour bison would be improved it it was depicted as leaping.

Here's one for you guys...that buffalo gif gave me an idea...how long till we see a helmet with some kind of electronic surface that would allow an animated logo?

It's likely to happen in basketball and hockey before football. Unless there are advances in field turf we're not aware of.

[ARTnSocal]

Stop over-reacting to people disagreeing or misunderstanding your posts.

. .

That's hilarious coming from you of all posters . .

[IceCap]

Stop over-reacting to people disagreeing or misunderstanding your posts.

. .

That's hilarious coming from you of all posters . .

Whatever you say

[BlueSky]

@ Ice Cap...good grief. Here we go again. Do you even read my posts before you start making baseless accusations? This is very...simple...logic.

I said:

1. The main complaint about the standing buffalo seems to be that it's passive.

2. The Cards and Dolphins added scowls to their logos because they were, we can presume, also seen as too passive.

Nope. The Dolphins didn't update their logo because it was "passive," it's because the old logo was starting to show its age. The pre-1997 Dolphins logo was, like Pat the Patriot, a convoluted drawing. It needed to be streamlined, and it was. The old logo being passive was not, I think, a major factor. As for the Cardinals, the the old logo was scowling too, so I don't think the old logo being "passive" was a factor. The update simply streamlined the image. It wasn't made any fiercer, if you really think about it.

So no. Your step-by-step explanation falls short. The Dolphins and Cardinals did not update due their old logos being "passive."

Ice Cap...seriously...let's analyze this. Why else would anyone add a scowl or menacing look to a dolphin or cardinal unless the original was perceived to be too passive looking? Whether or not the passivity factor drove the overall upgrade, the only logical reason to add or further emphasize a menacing look is because the natural/previous expression is seen as too passive.

3. I then asked whether the standing buffalo would be acceptable if it too got a frown. Yes, it was tongue-in-cheek, but nowhere did I say the logos were "on the same level" or attempt in any way to compare their aesthetics or anything else other than the perception of passivity vs. aggressiveness.

No, a frown would not help the standing bison. What would help it would be if it was depicted as leaping, as to convey motion.

Um, okay. Thanks. (Original suggestion to that effect was tongue-in-cheek.)

You've got to be the only one who read that and started flailing around screaming "HE'S COMPARING THOSE LOGOS AND LOOKING FOR AN ARGUMENT! WELL BLUESKY, YOU F***ED WITH THE WRONG UNI GEEK THIS TIME!!"

At least I hope you're the only one.

Stay classy

Not once did I "flail" or "scream." Stop over-reacting to people disagreeing or misunderstanding your posts. Sometimes, these things happen

I'm very happy to know that. But I didn't "overreact" and whatever reaction I had was to your baiting tactic of claiming I was just looking for an argument. Come on, I've been on this board for years. I know where to find an argument.

On a more pleasant note, I agree completely about the charging red buffalo with the player removed. Saw a pic of a concept helmet done that way and it was fantastic but unfortunately it wasn't a pic one can link to.

So you agree with my assessment that the single colour bison would be improved it it was depicted as leaping.

Why yes, I do. After seeing that concept, I changed my mind.

Here's one for you guys...that buffalo gif gave me an idea...how long till we see a helmet with some kind of electronic surface that would allow an animated logo?

It's likely to happen in basketball and hockey before football. Unless there are advances in field turf we're not aware of.

They're making helmets out of turf now?

[Cujo]

Marking 100 pages of Bills/Browns banter.

[IceCap]

Ice Cap...seriously...let's analyze this. Why else would anyone add a scowl or menacing look to a dolphin or cardinal unless the original was perceived to be too passive looking? Whether or not the passivity factor drove the overall upgrade, the only logical reason to add a menacing look is because the natural expression is seen as too passive.

Now who's not reading posts?

Take a look at the old Cardinals logo. He's got a scowl. So obviously making the logo more aggressive couldn't have been a concern with the update, as they didn't add a scowl. It was already there.

As for the Dolphins? Well again, look at the old logo. I would say actually streamlining the detail on the dolphin was the primary concern over any notion that the old logo was "passive." Yes, the Dolphins added a scowl, but that was just a result of them giving him a face in the first place.

3. I then asked whether the standing buffalo would be acceptable if it too got a frown. Yes, it was tongue-in-cheek, but nowhere did I say the logos were "on the same level" or attempt in any way to compare their aesthetics or anything else other than the perception of passivity vs. aggressiveness.

No, a frown would not help the standing bison. What would help it would be if it was depicted as leaping, as to convey motion.

Um, okay. Thanks. (Original suggestion to that effect was tongue-in-cheek.)

And it was a poor joke. "Hey, if you don't like standing buffalo logo then you must like crazy aggressive 90s cartoon logos. Maybe they should add a frown to the standing buffalo then you'd like it, hahah!"

It makes you come across as someone who doesn't get the other person's opinion, and thus has to ridicule and pigeon hole it in order to understand it. My dislike of the standing buffalo has nothing to do with what facial expression he is or isn't making. I don't like him because he's standing still.

You've got to be the only one who read that and started flailing around screaming "HE'S COMPARING THOSE LOGOS AND LOOKING FOR AN ARGUMENT! WELL BLUESKY, YOU F***ED WITH THE WRONG UNI GEEK THIS TIME!!"

At least I hope you're the only one.

Stay classy

Not once did I "flail" or "scream." Stop over-reacting to people disagreeing or misunderstanding your posts. Sometimes, these things happen

I'm very happy to know that. But I didn't "overreact" and whatever reaction I had was to your baiting tactic of claiming I was just looking for an argument. Come on, I've been on this board for years. I know where to find an argument.

You took a look at my response and claimed I was "flailing and screaming" without any indication that I was doing either. It really does seem like you were attempting to get me riled up with your gross over-generalization, which I've bolded for you.

If I misunderstood your original point, that's one thing. I apologize. It's the internet, this kind of thing happens. It's when you choose to over-exaggerate and take personal pot shots rather then trying to work out the misunderstanding that I take issue.

On a more pleasant note, I agree completely about the charging red buffalo with the player removed. Saw a pic of a concept helmet done that way and it was fantastic but unfortunately it wasn't a pic one can link to.

So you agree with my assessment that the single colour bison would be improved it it was depicted as leaping.

Why yes, I do, single color being without the "motion stripe" or whatever it is. (That's exactly what I stated in my original standing vs. leaping post.)

And now we've come full circle. The standing buffalo sucks because he's just standing.

[BlueSky]

@ Ice Cap

1. I edited my original response since we're calling that tiny downward line on the old cardinal's beak a frown. The point stands since they changed the expression to make it more menacing. As for the dolphin, just because they gave it a face didn't mean it had to be menacing. Granted, the usual dolphin "smile" isn't going to scare anybody, but neither is a dolphin scowl.

2. I think you read a little too much into that attempt at humor.

3. That's a wash.

4. Not exactly. The standing buffalo is a fine logo. You're the one who thinks it sucks.

[IceCap]

4. Not exactly. The standing buffalo is a fine logo. You're the one who thinks it sucks.

And quite a few people agree with me, so my opinion can't be that out there