"Classic" vs "Dated" NFL uniforms

[xTr1pleXx]

I'm a little freaked that anyone would call the Cowboys' Aikman-era double-stars classic. If only they'd worn the pants too.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that those were an actual pants design for the 'boys but they never wore them (obviously, or we'd all have clawed our eyes out). Anybody know the real story?

Anyway, in my mind, what makes something classic, at least in part, is seeing a team on the field and immediately knowing who it is. Even without overall continuity (i.e. the Giants have worn other designs), there's something very cool - not boring - about this:

Then

Now

The materials and a few details may have evolved (and Dallas needs to match those colors) but overall, there's no question who's who in either of those eras.

BTW, does the 'ny' helmet logo in that lower-case font have some significance for the city or was it just something the Giants came up with?

I love when that's possible, in any sport. I wouldn't want the Cowboys to change too much, just to make a few tweaks here and there to make the colors consistent, and eliminate the out-of-place black outlines. But they have to keep the same basic look - it's classic and recognizable, and you can know in a heartbeat what team you're looking at.

[Buster]

Classic:

Dated:

The '95 double star uniforms were, by far, the ugliest uniforms the Cowboys ever wore. They looked dated by the end of the season, not to mention the reversed out logo on the blue jersey. The white star works when it's a solid star, not so much with the current double outline star.

Agreed, I don't get the love for them around here. They're obnoxiously hideous. The colors match better than their usual mess of a uniform, but that is their only positive.

[whitedawg22]

I didn't check game start times, so perhaps it would've been more accurate to say that the pics I could find looked like night games. These are from the Meadowlands. Must have been pretty cloudy.

No, those shots (or at least the second one) are from the game in Texas. The Giants' home pants don't have any gray between the red and blue stripes on their pants. No matter what color jersey they wear on the road, they only wear the separated-stripes pants on the road and the consolidated-stripes pants at home:

(source)

[guest23]

I didn't check game start times, so perhaps it would've been more accurate to say that the pics I could find looked like night games. These are from the Meadowlands. Must have been pretty cloudy.

No, those shots (or at least the second one) are from the game in Texas. The Giants' home pants don't have any gray between the red and blue stripes on their pants. No matter what color jersey they wear on the road, they only wear the separated-stripes pants on the road and the consolidated-stripes pants at home:

(source)

home and road gray pants are insanely stupid...since they can wear both grays with the blue jerseys just stick with the road grays and be done with it...then add a pair of white pants for an alternate look.

[oldschoolvikings]

Probably about the millionth time this has been brought up, but you'll never get all the players (or even a majority of them) to wear the under sleeves, which would result in an even worse problem than everyone having crappy looking stripes; half the players would have stripes and half of them would have bare arms.

Eventually some manufacturer will look into making the entire sleeve out of Under Armour-type material. The undersleeve thing is inspired, but it still doesn't look right. The sleeves and shoulders have been different than the body of the jerseys for a long time, so switch the sleeves and shoulders over to spandex material and have the sleeves go halfway down the bicep.

In theory, from a visual perspective (and in my opinion, from a functional one as well), this would be the way to go. a super-tight 3/4 sleeve would eliminate the arm hole as a grabbing point for linemen and tacklers as well as allow for sleeve stripe elements. However, I think sleeves are like short shorts in basketball. No matter what you tell the players about how they might improve mobility and performance, I just don't see the players ever agreeing to go back to sleeves in any major form. One can only hope, though.

Right. Because, as much as anyone wants to argue otherwise, the tank top football jersey has almost nothing to do with on field performance, and almost everything to do with players wanting to look cool.

Its all about showing off the guns.

[Jinjoe]

I'm a little freaked that anyone would call the Cowboys' Aikman-era double-stars classic. If only they'd worn the pants too.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that those were an actual pants design for the 'boys but they never wore them (obviously, or we'd all have clawed our eyes out). Anybody know the real story?

Anyway, in my mind, what makes something classic, at least in part, is seeing a team on the field and immediately knowing who it is. Even without overall continuity (i.e. the Giants have worn other designs), there's something very cool - not boring - about this:

Then

Now

The materials and a few details may have evolved (and Dallas needs to match those colors) but overall, there's no question who's who in either of those eras.

BTW, does the 'ny' helmet logo in that lower-case font have some significance for the city or was it just something the Giants came up with?

I can't put my finger on exactly why, but looking at the pictures above,to me the 1967 version of the Giants uniforms looks so much better than the 2008 version. Maybe it's the way the sun hits the jerseys in the 1967 picture.

[BlueSky]

I'm a little freaked that anyone would call the Cowboys' Aikman-era double-stars classic. If only they'd worn the pants too.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that those were an actual pants design for the 'boys but they never wore them (obviously, or we'd all have clawed our eyes out). Anybody know the real story?

Anyway, in my mind, what makes something classic, at least in part, is seeing a team on the field and immediately knowing who it is. Even without overall continuity (i.e. the Giants have worn other designs), there's something very cool - not boring - about this:

Then

Now

The materials and a few details may have evolved (and Dallas needs to match those colors) but overall, there's no question who's who in either of those eras.

BTW, does the 'ny' helmet logo in that lower-case font have some significance for the city or was it just something the Giants came up with?

I can't put my finger on exactly why, but looking at the pictures above,to me the 1967 version of the Giants uniforms looks so much better than the 2008 version. Maybe it's the way the sun hits the jerseys in the 1967 picture.

Agreed. The pants are white for one thing, and that makes the jersey numbers and helmet logo pop. I simply find it astounding that they wear gray pants with homes and aways now. White jerseys with red numbers and stripes and gray pants, hey, not great, but okay. Blue jerseys with white numbers and gray pants? Uh, no.

Road set was pretty sweet too, with the sleeve stripes that matched the pants stripes:

@Whitedawg22, good catch. You're right, my mistake. These are from Cowboys @ Giants:

Since this is obviously during the National Anthem, it's before the game and still looks pretty dark. Hey, I don't give up easily.

[Buster]

I'm a little freaked that anyone would call the Cowboys' Aikman-era double-stars classic. If only they'd worn the pants too.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that those were an actual pants design for the 'boys but they never wore them (obviously, or we'd all have clawed our eyes out). Anybody know the real story?

Anyway, in my mind, what makes something classic, at least in part, is seeing a team on the field and immediately knowing who it is. Even without overall continuity (i.e. the Giants have worn other designs), there's something very cool - not boring - about this:

Then

Now

The materials and a few details may have evolved (and Dallas needs to match those colors) but overall, there's no question who's who in either of those eras.

BTW, does the 'ny' helmet logo in that lower-case font have some significance for the city or was it just something the Giants came up with?

I can't put my finger on exactly why, but looking at the pictures above,to me the 1967 version of the Giants uniforms looks so much better than the 2008 version. Maybe it's the way the sun hits the jerseys in the 1967 picture.

I agree. The white pants look so much better and the older jerseys don't have extreme tailoring going on, making them look horrible. The cuts of older jerseys just look better. Brett Favre (now retired) and Peyton Manning seem to be the only current players who realize this. Some players look like they're wearing shrunken basketball jerseys.

[TheOldRoman]

I can't put my finger on exactly why, but looking at the pictures above,to me the 1967 version of the Giants uniforms looks so much better than the 2008 version. Maybe it's the way the sun hits the jerseys in the 1967 picture.

A big part of it for me is the crappy, faded looking fabric the Giants use for the blue jerseys now. The faded ulta-matte material looks especially bad next to the sparkly helmet of the same color. The helmet looks so much darker.

[TheOldRoman]

Right. Because, as much as anyone wants to argue otherwise, the tank top football jersey has almost nothing to do with on field performance, and almost everything to do with players wanting to look cool.

Its all about showing off the guns.

Easy solution, then. Let Nike come up with some "super advanced fabric" they can market, force them to make all jerseys with the stretchy sleeves, and then outlaw altering the sleeves. Take it out of the players' hands.

[oldschoolvikings]

Right. Because, as much as anyone wants to argue otherwise, the tank top football jersey has almost nothing to do with on field performance, and almost everything to do with players wanting to look cool.

Its all about showing off the guns.

Easy solution, then. Let Nike come up with some "super advanced fabric" they can market, force them to make all jerseys with the stretchy sleeves, and then outlaw altering the sleeves. Take it out of the players' hands.

That would be great, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Jinjoe]

I'm a little freaked that anyone would call the Cowboys' Aikman-era double-stars classic. If only they'd worn the pants too.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that those were an actual pants design for the 'boys but they never wore them (obviously, or we'd all have clawed our eyes out). Anybody know the real story?

Anyway, in my mind, what makes something classic, at least in part, is seeing a team on the field and immediately knowing who it is. Even without overall continuity (i.e. the Giants have worn other designs), there's something very cool - not boring - about this:

Then

Now

The materials and a few details may have evolved (and Dallas needs to match those colors) but overall, there's no question who's who in either of those eras.

BTW, does the 'ny' helmet logo in that lower-case font have some significance for the city or was it just something the Giants came up with?

I can't put my finger on exactly why, but looking at the pictures above,to me the 1967 version of the Giants uniforms looks so much better than the 2008 version. Maybe it's the way the sun hits the jerseys in the 1967 picture.

I agree. The white pants look so much better and the older jerseys don't have extreme tailoring going on, making them look horrible. The cuts of older jerseys just look better. Brett Favre (now retired) and Peyton Manning seem to be the only current players who realize this. Some players look like they're wearing shrunken basketball jerseys.

I'm usually a big fan of modern looks, but even I got to admit that this look has gone way beyond ridiculous. I should not be able to see a player's armpits through a football jersey.

[andrewharrington]

I'm a little freaked that anyone would call the Cowboys' Aikman-era double-stars classic. If only they'd worn the pants too.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that those were an actual pants design for the 'boys but they never wore them (obviously, or we'd all have clawed our eyes out). Anybody know the real story?

Anyway, in my mind, what makes something classic, at least in part, is seeing a team on the field and immediately knowing who it is. Even without overall continuity (i.e. the Giants have worn other designs), there's something very cool - not boring - about this:

Then

Now

The materials and a few details may have evolved (and Dallas needs to match those colors) but overall, there's no question who's who in either of those eras.

BTW, does the 'ny' helmet logo in that lower-case font have some significance for the city or was it just something the Giants came up with?

I can't put my finger on exactly why, but looking at the pictures above,to me the 1967 version of the Giants uniforms looks so much better than the 2008 version. Maybe it's the way the sun hits the jerseys in the 1967 picture.

I agree. The white pants look so much better and the older jerseys don't have extreme tailoring going on, making them look horrible. The cuts of older jerseys just look better. Brett Favre (now retired) and Peyton Manning seem to be the only current players who realize this. Some players look like they're wearing shrunken basketball jerseys.

I'm usually a big fan of modern looks, but even I got to admit that this look has gone way beyond ridiculous. I should not be able to see a player's armpits through a football jersey.

I'm actually one who likes the Giants in gray pants, but then again, I think the numerals and helmet logo should be gray as well.

[ARTnSocal]

Here's one with the GIANTS and their rare 1975 logo with blue road pants at RFK from the season they played their home games at Shea Stadium.

I saw those when they played the BILLS at Rich Stadium on MNF that season, that game remains a bit of a blur.

[BrandMooreArt]

check out Marion Barber breakin off all these fools!

[TornadoGTS]

Here's one with the GIANTS and their rare 1975 logo with blue road pants at RFK from the season they played their home games at Shea Stadium.

I saw those when they played the BILLS at Rich Stadium on MNF that season, that game remains a bit of a blur.

Both teams look better there....

[BBTV]

LOL not. The Giants mis-matched blues are simply accentuated by the royal pants. I didn't really mind the navy helmet with royal jersey and white pants, but for some reason that just doesn't look right.

[Iceman87GT]

I think Reebok is more to blame for the ridiculous-looking sleeve stripes than the teams themselves. When they try to make an adjustment like they did with the 49ers, they often end up making things look worse. Thank goodness Nike is coming back to the NFL.

I don't see how this is any better than Reebok's NFL jerseys as far as handling the stripes goes.

Those are Nike's top of the line jerseys, Adidas/Reebok's response is a lot less friendly to uniform design (their special material/design makes UCLA stripes impossible, and warps all other sleeve stripes).

Here's how the 3 Companies (reebok and Adidas are using almost if not identical designs, as Reebok is owned by Adidas)latest uniform technology look like employing the UCLA Stripe:

Nike Pro Combat (DUKE)

Edit: apparently Nike did not make all schools switch to the pro combat look (the ones utilizing the UCLA Stripes are using some other cut: Ole Miss, VT, and Duke). However there is no way to make the UCLA stripes work with the techfit design, the pro combat does allow for the design (albeit a lesser one than the older cuts, its still superior to the techfit design).

Reebok's version of hte Techfit (COLTS)

Adidas Techfit (UCLA)

in the UCLA example everyone on the team is wearing the techfit, and you can clearly see how warped (and small) the stripes are because of the stretchy material used for them.

Also with Adidas/Reebok's Techfits there is pretty much no avoiding showing off the armpit regardless of the cut (its really obvious at the college level as every player uses the techfit, whereas in the NFL players still have the choice to choose whether they use the techfit or a more traditional cut)

Here's a QB showing off some pit (thank God for the sleeves)

Notre Dame Green

Fear the Pit (yes that's a QB)

And then there's the curved stripe effect:

Nebraska

Bottom line, Nike's best technology allows for the cut to determine how much pit you show, and allows for the stripes to remain mostly intact (especially when it comes to shoulder stripes), Adidas/Reebok's are stretchy (which warps designs) and shows off the armpit no matter what the cut is. Neither are perfect but one is better than the other.

[winghaz]

To me, the Rams' uniforms offer a good example of classic vs. dated. The current set is dated, while the ones with the royal blue and yellow, complete with the Ram horns on the shoulders, is classic. The current ones have become downright boring. The older ones were unique.

And by the way, I, too, am a big fan of the Fouts-era Chargers uniforms. Those are sharp, right down to the yellowish-goldish facemasks.

[guest23]

I think Reebok is more to blame for the ridiculous-looking sleeve stripes than the teams themselves. When they try to make an adjustment like they did with the 49ers, they often end up making things look worse. Thank goodness Nike is coming back to the NFL.

I don't see how this is any better than Reebok's NFL jerseys as far as handling the stripes goes.

Those are Nike's top of the line jerseys, Adidas/Reebok's response is a lot less friendly to uniform design (their special material/design makes UCLA stripes impossible, and warps all other sleeve stripes).

I don't the nike template used for duke/lsu and others is not the pro combat pattern/template but is more of a traditional rectangular/straight shoulder yoke with shoulder inserts and standard mesh for the chest and back...they're better than reeebok/adidas though...the pre tech fit ucla template was the best for those stripes imo

Here's how the 3 Companies (reebok and Adidas are using almost if not identical designs, as Reebok is owned by Adidas)latest uniform technology look like employing the UCLA Stripe:

Nike Pro Combat (DUKE)

Edit: apparently Nike did not make all schools switch to the pro combat look (the ones utilizing the UCLA Stripes are using some other cut: Ole Miss, VT, and Duke). However there is no way to make the UCLA stripes work with the techfit design, the pro combat does allow for the design (albeit a lesser one than the older cuts, its still superior to the techfit design).

Reebok's version of hte Techfit (COLTS)

Adidas Techfit (UCLA)

in the UCLA example everyone on the team is wearing the techfit, and you can clearly see how warped (and small) the stripes are because of the stretchy material used for them.

Also with Adidas/Reebok's Techfits there is pretty much no avoiding showing off the armpit regardless of the cut (its really obvious at the college level as every player uses the techfit, whereas in the NFL players still have the choice to choose whether they use the techfit or a more traditional cut)

Here's a QB showing off some pit (thank God for the sleeves)

Notre Dame Green

Fear the Pit (yes that's a QB)

And then there's the curved stripe effect:

Nebraska

Bottom line, Nike's best technology allows for the cut to determine how much pit you show, and allows for the stripes to remain mostly intact (especially when it comes to shoulder stripes), Adidas/Reebok's are stretchy (which warps designs) and shows off the armpit no matter what the cut is. Neither are perfect but one is better than the other.