NIKE NFL Uniforms

[GFB]

I'm glad this hasnt been a problem for the last 10 years or so until just now...

It hasn't happened to this level, other than on the Reebok prototypes worn by some of the Giants, Colts and Packers. There is no functional reason at all for the stripes to be as small as they are. There are two cuts of jersey sleeves. The position player cut doesn't look that bad. On the lineman cut, the sleeve portion could easily be extended another 2-3 inches on the front and back, coming roughly to the armpits. Instead, it looks like Walmart cheap replicas that have stripes only on the outer half of the sleeves.

Really? Come on now, let's not have a selective memory...

This is not a Nike problem, this is a problem from the advancement of football uniforms over the last 20 years.

On another note, I'm not that bothered by the Nike collars, but that's probably due to being a soccer player and seeing those faux-polo collars on plenty of teams.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, the no-actual-sleeve problem dates back to the mid-1990s at least. Not Nike's doing.

[Legend]

Why did they decide against coloring in the collar?

Seeing these unis in action makes them look alot more stupid.

I'm not one of the many Nike haters, I actually like Nike and alot of what they do. But the collars really just look out of place.

[tohasbo]

Are the captain patches a thing of the past now?

God, I hope so. Normally, they would not appear until the start of the regular season

[daschuck77]

So on top of the flywire/howie long/toliet seat, there are some other things worth noting about the Bills last night that may apply to other teams and players.

Marcell Dareus is so girthy his pants actually show the full stripe and are not obstructed by the extended belt loop. Also, he proudly displays his sweaty pooch.

The extended belt loop looks AWFUL on teams with traditional pant striping.

The Bills have navy and red trim on the collars but it becomes so negligable when stretched out. The uniform loses balance with that excessive white near the sleeve strips. Same goes for the Chargers.

[Lights Out]

Yeah, the no-actual-sleeve problem dates back to the mid-1990s at least. Not Nike's doing.

And honestly, it isn't a problem at all. Long-ass sleeves just don't look good on a football field.

BTW, as much as I don't like the partially-colored Flywire collar, it actually looks good on the Chargers' uniforms. It fits in with the jagged, angular sleeve striping.

[knnhrvy16]

Looking at the Chargers' uniforms, I'm upset that they didn't take the opportunity to fix thier inconsistency issues. The fact that the lightning bolt is never against the same color background accross the board has always bugged the crap out of me. It's one of the many reasons I vastly prefer the Seau set over the currents.

I mean, seriously. How hard is it to recolor the navy panel white on those pants? And same for the powder panel on the alts? Awful.

[Lights Out]

I mean, seriously. How hard is it to recolor the navy panel white on those pants? And same for the powder panel on the alts? Awful.

The lightning bolts ARE usually consistent, though. The bolt is in a white panel on the navy jersey and navy pants, and it's in a navy panel on the white jersey and white pants. The only inconsistency is with the other pair of white pants that go with the powder blue uniform, as the bolt never appears in a powder blue panel anywhere else in the uniform set. However, it still looks good, so it doesn't really matter to me.

Here's a visual guide:

Note how the panels are always white on blue and blue on white.

[TheOldRoman]

Really? Come on now, let's not have a selective memory...

This is not a Nike problem, this is a problem from the advancement of football uniforms over the last 20 years.

On another note, I'm not that bothered by the Nike collars, but that's probably due to being a soccer player and seeing those faux-polo collars on plenty of teams.

I remember those well, but they were not as bad as Nike's current template or Reebok's crappy template from the past few years. If you look at the above pics of #99 and 37 of the Bills, there is no reason the sleeve piece cannot go to the end of the armhole, which would leave about three extra inches of stripes on the front and back. If they did that and slightly curled the stripes down (as Reebok did on the Vikings throwbacks), it would look much better and closer to a complete stripe. About the only teams the current template might benefit are shoulder stripe teams like the Colts and Jets, but I imagine when we see them on the field they will not have improved visually from last year.

[TheOldRoman]

I mean, seriously. How hard is it to recolor the navy panel white on those pants? And same for the powder panel on the alts? Awful.

The lightning bolts ARE usually consistent, though. The bolt is in a white panel on the navy jersey and navy pants, and it's in a navy panel on the white jersey and white pants. The only inconsistency is with the other pair of white pants that go with the powder blue uniform, as the bolt never appears in a powder blue panel anywhere else in the uniform set. However, it still looks good, so it doesn't really matter to me.

First off, I consider the Chargers a bottom 10 set in the league. Anyway, having different color backgrounds is the definition of inconsistency. It's not consistent unless the bolt always appears on one color, as was the case with the much superior previous set.

[TheOldRoman]

The sleeve stripes were only covered on players who had lose jersey sleeves. All stripes showed on linemen and players with tighter sleeves. Besides, having a single stripe covered was far preferable to moving the numbers. It just doesn't look right.

Hey, if you don't like the shoulder numbers, you don't like the shoulder numbers. Personal preferences and annoyances with details are what this board's all about. But as to that particular part of your argument, hey buddy.

I stand corrected. I seemed to remember most of the linemen jerseys looking like #63's above, where the stripes are not blocked. It wasn't an ideal situation either way, but I would almost have rather seen them cut down to one sleeve stripe on the very bottom of the area and keep the sleeve numbers. For some reason, to me at least, the Bears' number font looks very awkward on the shoulders. I feel almost like the numbers were a more important sleeve element than the stripes. I'm sure I will get used to the shoulder numbers in time, but to me it fixed one problem by creating another.

[Lights Out]

Anyway, having different color backgrounds is the definition of inconsistency.

Well, no, because the striping's consistency is based off the color of each individual part of the uniform, not the uniform as a whole, if that makes sense.

It's not consistent unless the bolt always appears on one color, as was the case with the much superior previous set.

Huh? Those are seriously one of the most overrated uniforms on this forum.

[knnhrvy16]

I mean, seriously. How hard is it to recolor the navy panel white on those pants? And same for the powder panel on the alts? Awful.

The lightning bolts ARE usually consistent, though. The bolt is in a white panel on the navy jersey and navy pants, and it's in a navy panel on the white jersey and white pants. The only inconsistency is with the other pair of white pants that go with the powder blue uniform, as the bolt never appears in a powder blue panel anywhere else in the uniform set. However, it still looks good, so it doesn't really matter to me.

First off, I consider the Chargers a bottom 10 set in the league. Anyway, having different color backgrounds is the definition of inconsistency. It's not consistent unless the bolt always appears on one color, as was the case with the much superior previous set.

That's exactly my point. The bolt should ALWAYS appear against the white. Whether its the jersey, pants, whatever. The only time the bolt background is COMPLETELY consistent is the navy monochrome. In all other cases, there's an inconsistency either on the pants, jersey, or both.

[TheOldRoman]

Well, no, because the striping's consistency is based off the color of each individual part of the uniform, not the uniform as a whole, if that makes sense.

Yeah, but that's not important, becaus the silly comma stripes don't evoke anything visually, the bolts do. It doesn't really add anything to the uniform to have the bolts on contrasting areas. It would be acceptable to have the bolt on same-color areas (navy on the navy jersey/pants, white on the white jersey/pants), and it would also look good to have the bolt always be on the same color background (floating bolts on the white jersey/pants but white inserts on the navy jersey/pants, was was the case with the previous throwback set other than the white jersey.) But to go out of the way to add contrasting panels so the bolt is on a different color than the rest of the garment (other than on the helmet) seems like they overthought things.

[Bouj]

I'm operating under the assumption that Nike is the one that's supposed to care, and they should've done more to help the teams that obviously felt they were in good hands and left it up to the "experts".

Assuming that it's automatically the designer's fault for "not caring enough" is pretty dumb. Presumably, Nike showed a bunch of different options to every team during the design process, so it's ultimately the team's fault for choosing whichever option looked the worst. Additionally, for all we know, Nike could have come up with the world's greatest designs, and the teams could have been totally finicky and turned them all down.

And I would find it "pretty dumb" to presume that. If nike showed a bunch of options to everyone, it would seem surprising that only Seattle jumped into the garbage pile to pull one out.

And I also thinks its hilarious (or I guess I could go with "pretty dumb") to say that a team choosing to keep their old look (adapted to a new template) is the "option that looked the worst." I think the Seahawks are living proof that there's no way that's the case.

And for the 100th time, I have conceded that "it's ultimately the team's fault"... I just expected more from Nike in terms of taking teams through the process and giving them template options. I think the fact that a handful of teams were forced to forgo any nike template whatsoever is proof that the choices weren't sufficent.

Sorry for misrepresenting your original contention about it not being on the teams. But in regards to Nike, it's Nike's job to sell their brand. They are a corporation. They don't have some civic duty to maintain the integrity of their clients' looks outside of "Make them look professional". In spite of little stupid touches here and there, they all look like professional football teams, and they all look like they are wearing Nike clothing. Nike probably knew they could get a little further into goofiness than they could with Alabama/Texas/USC, but they knew they'd never get to an Oregon-level different style. So they Nike-fied it just enough.

In regards to why Seattle was the only one to go nuts, Nike is dealing with one of the biggest group of conservative-minded businessmen in the country. It's not likely that they were ever going to get more than 1-2 teams to go nuts and change their look drastically. So, in that regard, teams don't care how they look as long as you don't change the general way they look. The Nikelace collars look <i>just</i> enough like the Howie Long- or Eric Dickerson-style collars that teams would have said, "Oh, yeah, looks like a football player!" and signed off.

Hell, I'd bet dollars to donuts that Reebok told Jerry Jones that his silvers were mismatched and asked him if he wanted to fix that. "Hell no! That's the way we've always looked! Yee-haw!!!"

[seahawk9]

So on top of the flywire/howie long/toliet seat, there are some other things worth noting about the Bills last night that may apply to other teams and players.

Marcell Dareus is so girthy his pants actually show the full stripe and are not obstructed by the extended belt loop. Also, he proudly displays his sweaty pooch.

The extended belt loop looks AWFUL on teams with traditional pant striping.

The Bills have navy and red trim on the collars but it becomes so negligable when stretched out. The uniform loses balance with that excessive white near the sleeve strips. Same goes for the Chargers.

Why are there darker color of blue squares on the stomachs of the the players ????? If its just a fabric patch, and with all the technology today, can't they match the color with the rest of the jersey ?

[waltere]

^Sweat stains showing through

[CrazyAnna]

A few thoughts on today's games:

1) The Jets green jersey is a mess. Why are the "sweat" portions that much darker? I mean, the color isn't even close.

2) The Lions were geniuses for ditching the black color and letting the flywire collar flow much better.

3) Where are these brown socks that people kept saying the Browns were switching too when they wear the white jersey? They are in all white. You mean this so-called NFL style guide is wrong yet again, no way!

4) The new Chiefs look is growing on me.

5) I don't really know why, but the Nike's version of the Bengals jersey looks better. Was there a minor tweak (perhaps the sleeve bengal stripes smaller)? I can't figure it out, but they just look better.

[Kevin W.]

With all the technology Nike claims to put into these jerseys and the fact that their jerseys have had the sweatboxes for several years now, it's mind-boggling that they can't manufacture a fabric that stays the same color when wet. It can't be that hard, can it?

[ONUV]

if it's not that hard why don't you do it. if the biggest sports apparel company can't do it, i doubt it's an easy fix.