NFL Week 15

[IceCap]

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.

That's not evolution. Evolution implies that the changes are better, an improvement of what came before. Like baseball uniforms no longer being made of flannel. That's evolution. The Denver Broncos deciding to wear navy pants with navy jerseys or the Oregon Ducks wearing black, highlighter yellow, and three shades of grey isn't evolution. It's a trend.

There's a difference.

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.

Hey, I'm a big believer in the bolded part. I try to shy away from making statements like all modern/traditional styles, all uniform wordmarks, all grey facemasks, etc.... are good/bad because the fact of the matter is that different looks for different teams.

That being said I have yet to see a single monochrome football look that I think looks good.

[nuordr]

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.

I am also clueless that people like you cannot see that old uniform styles were trash, like the Vikings and the Rams. The monochromes are great for the Broncos because of 1) The colors go well together, and they are not one solid color without striping (NC State), 2) Football uniforms with the right striping should all be able to be MONCHROME, 3) the socks do not have to be the same color (Marshawn Lynch Green Socks), 4) the belly shirts is a players choice, therefore you limit what the player can do. 5) side panels from the pants to the jersey work now just like before because it attached the bottom part of the uniform with the top.

[nuordr]

Hey, I'm a big believer in the bolded part. I try to shy away from making statements like all modern/traditional styles, all uniform wordmarks, all grey facemasks, etc.... are good/bad because the fact of the matter is that different looks for different teams.

That being said I have yet to see a single monochrome football look that I think looks good.

Really, not on? So do you like all-white looks? If so, they are monochrome as well, so you would like one then.

[IceCap]

All white, to me, isn't monochrome.

[nuordr]

All white, to me, isn't monochrome.

Monochrome definition: a painting or drawing in different shades of a single color. --- This color could be all-white or any all-darker color. So you may not believe the new Bills away uniforms are not monochrome, but the definition proves you opinion wrong.

[IceCap]

All white, to me, isn't monochrome.

Monochrome definition: a painting or drawing in different shades of a single color. --- This color could be all-white or any all-darker color. So you may not believe the new Bills away uniforms are not monochrome, but the definition proves you opinion wrong.

Technically white isn't a colour. So all white isn't monochrome. The down side to being so technical is that all black isn't monochrome either.

To the point, however, you seem either unable or unwilling to differentiate technical definitions from definitions of uniform trends as they pertain to this little section of interest of ours (sports uniform and logo design).

Within the realm of sports logo and uniform design monochrome refers to a fairly recent uniform trend in football where teams wear a coloured jersey (again definitions change, so in this case colour is anything not white) while wearing pants of the same colour. Sometimes teams also wear socks and/or helmets in this colour as well to complete the look.

That's what I mean when I talk a out monochrome as it related to football uniforms. All white doesn't count.

To my original point before your attempted derailment, I have yet to see a monochrome look that looks good.

[UnclearInitial]

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.

That's not evolution. Evolution implies that the changes are better, an improvement of what came before. Like baseball uniforms no longer being made of flannel. That's evolution. The Denver Broncos deciding to wear navy pants with navy jerseys or the Oregon Ducks wearing black, highlighter yellow, and three shades of grey isn't evolution. It's a trend.

There's a difference.

A trend that has lasted for decades

[IceCap]

Not really. You see a few isolated cases of it through the years, but it didn't catch on as a trend until recently when it was decided that it looked "cool" and "sick."

[DeFrank]

Not really. You see a few isolated cases of it through the years, but it didn't catch on as a trend until recently when it was decided that it looked "cool" and "sick."

So your reasoning as to why it's used now more than before is that people think it's "sick"? So the same can be said for... facemasks in the 1950's? Stripes on football uniforms? Logos on helmets? Those are RAD!

Maybe trends change for more than just superficial reasons?

[IceCap]

Not really. You see a few isolated cases of it through the years, but it didn't catch on as a trend until recently when it was decided that it looked "cool" and "sick."

So your reasoning as to why it's used now more than before is that people think it's "sick"? So the same can be said for... facemasks in the 1950's? Stripes on football uniforms? Logos on helmets? Those are RAD!

Ok... I don't really see your point here....

I don't have or need a "reasoning" as to why monochrome, as a trend, took off when it did (within the last decade) or why it did. For whatever reason it was just decided that monochrome looked "cool" and it took off.

Sleeve stripes as a design element worked, and in some cases continue to work. Like I said I have yet to see a monochrome set that looks good.

As for football helmets, you fell into the same trap that most modernists fall into. You assume modern designs are "evolutionary" on par with improved equipment and materials. That isn't the case. The facemask was evolutionary. Monochrome is a trend.

[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.

That's not evolution. Evolution implies that the changes are better, an improvement of what came before. Like baseball uniforms no longer being made of flannel. That's evolution. The Denver Broncos deciding to wear navy pants with navy jerseys or the Oregon Ducks wearing black, highlighter yellow, and three shades of grey isn't evolution. It's a trend.

There's a difference.

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.

Hey, I'm a big believer in the bolded part. I try to shy away from making statements like all modern/traditional styles, all uniform wordmarks, all grey facemasks, etc.... are good/bad because the fact of the matter is that different looks for different teams.

That being said I have yet to see a single monochrome football look that I think looks good.

I think we're on the same page about the evolution idea, though I may not have worded my sentence properly the first time around. Yes, changes to uniforms such as materials are evolution, it is an improvement. But my point was there are also changes in style over time. Call it style evolution, call it trends, whatever. The point is things change for aesthetic purposes, sometimes as a result of new technology/material/whatever, sometimes simply to try something new. So in regard to my original statement, teams choosing to wear monochromatic uniforms is an example of style evolution/trends. Again, I feel like you and I are on the same page here, Ice_Cap, but I'm not sure I said what I meant to say the right way.

And for the second part...holy heckfire, somebody gets it! Seriously, that is exactly what I mean. I really hope more posters here can grasp this idea. No offense to anyone, but I feel like there are some really intelligent and reasonable members here (such as Ice_Cap continuously demonstrates (even though I disagree with some of his tastes/opinions on some things) as well as many others), but there are far too many posters here that honestly come off as...well, let's just say not as intelligent.

Anyway, enough rambling, I feel like I have made my point.

[Chawls]

What's the point of arguing opinions? That's like arguing religion or politics. You can talk until you're blue in the face, but you aren't changing the personal views of someone else. What looks like a "clownsuit" to one person looks great to another. We're arguing opinions like facts when they're not. If we're gonna post opinions on here, maybe we should preface them with IMHO, to remind ourselves and others that what we're posting here are opinions, that in no way can be substantiated with facts.

The only uniform fact I know of is that everyone loves San Diego powder blue throwback jersey. That's it.

[tBBP]

I don't love it. There goes your proof-positive fact.

(I probably would though if it were truer to the original Pacific blue jersey, though.)

[ARTnSocal]

I think if you're going to do the two-color thing, then do it all the way. Currently they use white names and a white stripe on the pants. Yellow names with a big bold pants stripe (ala the Saints or Steelers) would be preferrable. Right now, it's stuck in the middle.

Just for the record, I prefer their current uniforms to the throwbacks. I was disappointed when I turned on the game saw the Rams in those things.

Same here. Say what you will about the "drabness" of the Rams current look, but I think it's about as well executed an "update/modernization" as we've seen over the years.

Of course it's no secret what uniforms I think the Rams should be wearing...

This is how you do a two color look.

I LOVE the old '65-'71 LA RAMS helmet the way the Ram horns are on the helmet in the very front. They have that V-shape from the very front as the 2 Ram horns backwards, That's how Ram horns SHOULD LOOK .... Please go back to them .... the current decals are awful, no matter the color. Bring 'em back to LA and bring back the SF v LA rivalry.

Look at Roman Gabriel 18 ... V-shaped front ... that's how a ram helmet SHOULD look!!!

[BlueSky]

I don't love it. There goes your proof-positive fact.

(I probably would though if it were truer to the original Pacific blue jersey, though.)

^^^^

Stole my thunder...

As many here know, do NOT get me started about the powder blues. Still wondering how the Chargers' "1963" AFL 50th Anniversary unis that everyone fawned over were powder blue when their own website confirms they didn't wear powder blue until 1968.

[TheOldRoman]

As for football helmets, you fell into the same trap that most modernists fall into. You assume modern designs are "evolutionary" on par with improved equipment and materials. That isn't the case. The facemask was evolutionary. Monochrome is a trend.

Correct, and I would like to reiterate what has been stated before. Certain things are timeless and others are trendy. Look at a black single breasted suit, ignoring the way the suit is fitted. That suit would be just as classy and appropriate now as it was 150 years ago. Now compare that to Zubas, bell bottoms and leisure suits - all things which were at one point the epitome of cool, yet now would get you laughed at. I am not saying that every single traditional styled uniform is classic, nor that every modern style is bad. However, certain uniforms (Bears, Packers) look just as good now as in 1960, as they will in 2050 if they resist the urge to change them. Monochrome uniforms look cool now, but in 20 years they will seem just as dated as a Flock of Seagulls haircut.

The aesthetics of football were shaped in the '50s and early '60s when the League really took off. This is what a football uniform SHOULD look like. There are certain things you can do and certain things you can't do within those aesthetics, and those aren't going to be changed. Nearly every uniform which doesn't conform to traditional football aesthetics is doomed to become dated and changed.

[Chawls]

I don't love it. There goes your proof-positive fact.

(I probably would though if it were truer to the original Pacific blue jersey, though.)

Damn you Buc. There goes my attempt at total control.

[John in KY]

I think if you're going to do the two-color thing, then do it all the way. Currently they use white names and a white stripe on the pants. Yellow names with a big bold pants stripe (ala the Saints or Steelers) would be preferrable. Right now, it's stuck in the middle.

Just for the record, I prefer their current uniforms to the throwbacks. I was disappointed when I turned on the game saw the Rams in those things.

Same here. Say what you will about the "drabness" of the Rams current look, but I think it's about as well executed an "update/modernization" as we've seen over the years.

Of course it's no secret what uniforms I think the Rams should be wearing...

This is how you do a two color look.

I LOVE the old '65-'71 LA RAMS helmet the way the Ram horns are on the helmet in the very front. They have that V-shape from the very front as the 2 Ram horns backwards, That's how Ram horns SHOULD LOOK .... Please go back to them .... the current decals are awful, no matter the color. Bring 'em back to LA and bring back the SF v LA rivalry.

Look at Roman Gabriel 18 ... V-shaped front ... that's how a ram helmet SHOULD look!!!

True - but it is too bad that modern helmets have that pesky front bumper that would cover that style of ram horn. On most Riddell helmets that front bumper also holds in the forehead pad (and I think the Schutt helmets are made the same way now as well).