NFL Week 15

[infrared41]

Good list Curt. One question, where's the Bears - Seahawks game? Seems you missed one.

[Cujo]

Good list Curt. One question, where's the Bears - Seahawks game? Seems you missed one.

That games makes my B-list, along with Titans-Colts, Panthers-Texans and Giants-Skins.

Patriots-Broncos would've also made this list had Denver not went monochrome, again.

[Bmac]

There's nothing wrong with Denver's monochrome look. All panels match, it is an easy color on the eyes, orange stands out nicely, etc. I think people don't like it just because "omg monochrome = ugly automatically no matter what ahhh traditional is better" nonsense. Seriously, it looks fine.

[Keith75]

Did anyone notice the 49's helmet they had a 34 and 35 in black. Who do they represent?

[See Red]

To honor a couple two former 49ers that died during the offseason -- running back Joe "The Jet" Perry (#34) and fullback John Henry Johnson (#35)

[Slater]

I think the Rams' unis are great, but I rather liked the old school look:

[TheOldRoman]

There's nothing wrong with Denver's monochrome look. All panels match, it is an easy color on the eyes, orange stands out nicely, etc. I think people don't like it just because "omg monochrome = ugly automatically no matter what ahhh traditional is better" nonsense. Seriously, it looks fine.

1) All monochromes ARE inherently bad. Basketball uniforms are monochrom. Hockey uniforms can be monochrome. Football uniforms shouldn't. 2) The socks are the same color as the pants, which automatically makes them worse. 3) Also, the side panels don't really match up. The side panels are generally stretched much wider than the pants stripes and twisted sideways. The problem is made even worse with the increasing number of players wearing belly shirts, as they are more easily twisted when not tucked in. With current uniform cuts, side panels running from the pants to jerseys don't work anymore.

[raysox]

I had a dream the Seahawks wore their lime greens. Then i was sad when I woke up.

[BrandMooreArt]

dosent get much better than that. Bills and Dolphins in the snow

i love this pic anyway, look at all the Bills getting Bush whacked!

[TheOldRoman]

The Bills fixed the problem with the blue socks! Instead of the socks having blue stripes outlined in red, with a blue swatch at the top as they originally wore earlier in the year, they have gone with common sense and made the socks blue with navy-red-white-red-navy stripes to match the sleeves on their home jersey. Great change! Hopefully they will also make the white socks match the white sleeves whenever they debut the blue pants next year.

[BlueSky]

dosent get much better than that. Bills and Dolphins in the snow

i love this pic anyway, look at all the Bills getting Bush whacked!

I always like to see a then-and-now for games like this.

P.S. Isn't it true that teams can only wear alts twice a year? I suspect we'll see the Saints monos on MNF this week but they couldn't wear throwbacks even if they wanted to, right? (Because they've worn them twice already.)

[CubsFanBudMan]

Regarding the comments about the Rams' two blues: The coaches on the sideline were wearing a third, even lighter shade. It looked almost powder in person.

[John in KY]

I dislike the Rams throwback uniform. Navy blue helmets with royal blue jerseys is a bad look IMO. Same thing applies to the NY Gians throwback (LT era).

It always reminded me of when varsity football team would completely change their uniform colors, and hand down the previous set to JV. Leaving the JV team with helmets that don't match their jerseys and pants at all.

I've seen many complaints on this forum about teams using two shades of blue in their color scheme (mainly navy blue paired with sky blue), yet the Rams/Giants throwbacks seem to get a pass when it comes to this.

If you had been around discussing this stuff in the 1980s you would have heard people complaining about the Rams/Giants wearing navy helmets with their royal blue jerseys. Ironically now the throwbacks get a bit of a "pass" simply because they are being accurate to the originals.

[TheOldRoman]

I dislike the Rams throwback uniform. Navy blue helmets with royal blue jerseys is a bad look IMO. Same thing applies to the NY Gians throwback (LT era).

It always reminded me of when varsity football team would completely change their uniform colors, and hand down the previous set to JV. Leaving the JV team with helmets that don't match their jerseys and pants at all.

I've seen many complaints on this forum about teams using two shades of blue in their color scheme (mainly navy blue paired with sky blue), yet the Rams/Giants throwbacks seem to get a pass when it comes to this.

If you had been around discussing this stuff in the 1980s you would have heard people complaining about the Rams/Giants wearing navy helmets with their royal blue jerseys. Ironically now the throwbacks get a bit of a "pass" simply because they are being accurate to the originals.

It's not ironic at all, these jerseys are paying tribute to what was worn previously, so it is only right to match the old look as best they can. Now, I think everyone who loves the classic Super Bowl set (myself included) would agree that if they were brought back, the helmet should be royal blue.

[TruColor]

I dislike the Rams throwback uniform. Navy blue helmets with royal blue jerseys is a bad look IMO. Same thing applies to the NY Gians throwback (LT era).

It always reminded me of when varsity football team would completely change their uniform colors, and hand down the previous set to JV. Leaving the JV team with helmets that don't match their jerseys and pants at all.

I've seen many complaints on this forum about teams using two shades of blue in their color scheme (mainly navy blue paired with sky blue), yet the Rams/Giants throwbacks seem to get a pass when it comes to this.

If you had been around discussing this stuff in the 1980s you would have heard people complaining about the Rams/Giants wearing navy helmets with their royal blue jerseys. Ironically now the throwbacks get a bit of a "pass" simply because they are being accurate to the originals.

The helmet experts here can correct me on this, but my impression was that often the shell was a standard unpainted color, and they didn't always match exactly with the uniforms. However, the Rams deliberately specified a darker color for the helmets vs. the uniforms back in the '80s:

...however, the Giants did NOT do this.

Interestingly, the Eagles did this for a while as well:

With the Rams' current throwbacks, I believe they are just changing out the horn decals from the current helmets. The official specs has the throwback helmets being the same color as the current Navy helmets:

[oldschoolvikings]

There's nothing wrong with Denver's monochrome look. All panels match, it is an easy color on the eyes, orange stands out nicely, etc. I think people don't like it just because "omg monochrome = ugly automatically no matter what ahhh traditional is better" nonsense. Seriously, it looks fine.

1) All monochromes ARE inherently bad. Basketball uniforms are monochrom. Hockey uniforms can be monochrome. Football uniforms shouldn't. 2) The socks are the same color as the pants, which automatically makes them worse. 3) Also, the side panels don't really match up. The side panels are generally stretched much wider than the pants stripes and twisted sideways. The problem is made even worse with the increasing number of players wearing belly shirts, as they are more easily twisted when not tucked in. With current uniform cuts, side panels running from the pants to jerseys don't work anymore.

Well said. You've outlined every problem with the Broncomono. I'm clueless as to why everyone can't see this.

[Slater]

The Rams' navy blue helmets sharply contrasted with the yellow horns, which made (I thought, anyway) the horns stand out even more. Even from a distance or in poor light. I kind of liked that look.

[John in KY]

I dislike the Rams throwback uniform. Navy blue helmets with royal blue jerseys is a bad look IMO. Same thing applies to the NY Gians throwback (LT era).

It always reminded me of when varsity football team would completely change their uniform colors, and hand down the previous set to JV. Leaving the JV team with helmets that don't match their jerseys and pants at all.

I've seen many complaints on this forum about teams using two shades of blue in their color scheme (mainly navy blue paired with sky blue), yet the Rams/Giants throwbacks seem to get a pass when it comes to this.

If you had been around discussing this stuff in the 1980s you would have heard people complaining about the Rams/Giants wearing navy helmets with their royal blue jerseys. Ironically now the throwbacks get a bit of a "pass" simply because they are being accurate to the originals.

The helmet experts here can correct me on this, but my impression was that often the shell was a standard unpainted color, and they didn't always match exactly with the uniforms. However, the Rams deliberately specified a darker color for the helmets vs. the uniforms back in the '80s:

...however, the Giants did NOT do this.

Interestingly, the Eagles did this for a while as well:

With the Rams' current throwbacks, I believe they are just changing out the horn decals from the current helmets. The official specs has the throwback helmets being the same color as the current Navy helmets:

I didn't put it in my other post but that is correct - Riddell (and other helmet manufacturers) only had a fairly small range of colors they could mold the plastic shell from back then, and the teams wanted the colors molded in to save time on helmet maintenance compared to what they had to do in the 50s and 60s. The Rams, Giants, Eagles, etc. just picked whatever was closest to their colors for the shells. However, I never knew that the Rams and Eagles specified the molded color on their style sheets.

Of course today we have most NFL teams putting some type of painted finish on their helmets - even most of the teams with white helmets have some kind of pearl finish on them (the Dolphins seem to particularly stand out with their finish).

[Sport]

It used to bug me so much that the Broncos could make a royal blue helmet work (if even a little too light)

but the Rams and Giants couldn't.

I was very happy when the metallicy sparkle finish helmets started showing up and the colors looked like they matched so much closer.

[Bmac]

There's nothing wrong with Denver's monochrome look. All panels match, it is an easy color on the eyes, orange stands out nicely, etc. I think people don't like it just because "omg monochrome = ugly automatically no matter what ahhh traditional is better" nonsense. Seriously, it looks fine.

1) All monochromes ARE inherently bad. Basketball uniforms are monochrom. Hockey uniforms can be monochrome. Football uniforms shouldn't. 2) The socks are the same color as the pants, which automatically makes them worse. 3) Also, the side panels don't really match up. The side panels are generally stretched much wider than the pants stripes and twisted sideways. The problem is made even worse with the increasing number of players wearing belly shirts, as they are more easily twisted when not tucked in. With current uniform cuts, side panels running from the pants to jerseys don't work anymore.

Well said. You've outlined every problem with the Broncomono. I'm clueless as to why everyone can't see this.

Your first statement is nonsense, there's no reason football uniforms cannot feature the same color jersey and pants together. Just because it "wasn't like that back in the day?" I hate to say this, but things change. Style, or whatever you want to call it, evolves. Sports uniforms evolve. There is a reason baseball players no longer wear heavy flannel jerseys. Sometimes the changes are more practical like that, other times the changes are simply done for aesthetic reasons. There is no rule that states teams must wear "dark jersey over light pants" or whatnot. Now, if one does not care for such look, fine. You are entitled to your opinion and if that is what you truly believe, great. And you know, I feel there are a large number of monochrome looks that simply don't look good. But some do. "All monochromes are bad" is a ridiculous statement. Judge each uniform individually.

I think orange socks might add to the look, but I don't think navy automatically makes them worse. I don't quite see the difference in side panels (when looking at pictures) but I know what are are talking about. While that could probably be modified I think it is similar to the problem of matching all fabric colors perfectly; it is nearly impossible.

Anyway, I'm all for legitimate discussion of what makes a uniform good or bad, but it is difficult to take any points with validity after comments about all of anything being awful and such.