NIKE NFL Uniforms

[Lights Out]

Romo (who needs full range of motion in his arm) has proven that one can excel wearing traditional sleeves

Excel? At what, choking?

[TimEOBrien]

Romo (who needs full range of motion in his arm) has proven that one can excel wearing traditional sleeves

And Orton has proven that one can fail spectacularly.

[ONUV]

slats, let the players wear what they are comfortable wearing. if you want a fashion show, go to paris.

[Billy B]

In watching the Cowboys and Raiders pre season game on ESPN I noticed something weird about Orton's jersey. He wears an ideal cut that older quarterbacks tend to use. His sleeves go down almost to his elbow but the sleeve stripes are way up almost near the shoulders. Kinda odd. Any other teams with sleeve stripes have this issue with players that use a longer sleeve cut?

Edit: also noticed Romo's jersey has the same problem with the sleeves. Bothersome.

Not your imagination.

The Dallas QBs are the only ones who continue to wear real, honest to goodness sleeves. Nike :censored:ed it up by moving the stripes too high, like they do with every other player. Sleeve stripes should never be above the numbers on the front of the jersey, regardless of what position you play. Every Dallas player should be wearing the exact same sleeve length exhibited by Romo and Orton, albeit with the stripes at the bottom of the cuff.

Yeah, because linemen, RBs, WRs, etc. want to wear long sleeves...

Who cares what they want? Half of them would probably wear next to nothing if they could. The fact is that hiked up sleeves/stripes look terrible. Romo (who needs full range of motion in his arm) has proven that one can excel wearing traditional sleeves, putting a lie to the notion that they put you at a competitive disadvantage. The idea that they impede performance is a farce. This is all about form, not function.

Dez, take a cue from your QB and lower those sleeves.

Maybe some players think it looks cooler to have short sleeves, but the primary reason that most players have them is because they're better to play in. And saying Romo doesn't need the short sleeves to be successful is an entirely different thing. Almost all quarterbacks wear long sleeves because they find it easier to throw in. If you're playing a skill position, the shorter sleeves make it much more difficult for your opponent to grab onto you by your sleeves. Not to mention most players find it more comfortable and every little bit can help.

[slats7]

slats, let the players wear what they are comfortable wearing. if you want a fashion show, go to paris.

Other than jersey size, you're not supposed to have variations in uniforms on the same team. What's next? WRs ditching socks to pick up speed? Pardon the pun, but the goal is uniformity of style. You can't have 53 guys going their own way.

[slats7]

In watching the Cowboys and Raiders pre season game on ESPN I noticed something weird about Orton's jersey. He wears an ideal cut that older quarterbacks tend to use. His sleeves go down almost to his elbow but the sleeve stripes are way up almost near the shoulders. Kinda odd. Any other teams with sleeve stripes have this issue with players that use a longer sleeve cut?

Edit: also noticed Romo's jersey has the same problem with the sleeves. Bothersome.

Not your imagination.

The Dallas QBs are the only ones who continue to wear real, honest to goodness sleeves. Nike :censored:ed it up by moving the stripes too high, like they do with every other player. Sleeve stripes should never be above the numbers on the front of the jersey, regardless of what position you play. Every Dallas player should be wearing the exact same sleeve length exhibited by Romo and Orton, albeit with the stripes at the bottom of the cuff.

Yeah, because linemen, RBs, WRs, etc. want to wear long sleeves...

Who cares what they want? Half of them would probably wear next to nothing if they could. The fact is that hiked up sleeves/stripes look terrible. Romo (who needs full range of motion in his arm) has proven that one can excel wearing traditional sleeves, putting a lie to the notion that they put you at a competitive disadvantage. The idea that they impede performance is a farce. This is all about form, not function.

Dez, take a cue from your QB and lower those sleeves.

Maybe some players think it looks cooler to have short sleeves, but the primary reason that most players have them is because they're better to play in. And saying Romo doesn't need the short sleeves to be successful is an entirely different thing. Almost all quarterbacks wear long sleeves because they find it easier to throw in. If you're playing a skill position, the shorter sleeves make it much more difficult for your opponent to grab onto you by your sleeves. Not to mention most players find it more comfortable and every little bit can help.

QB is a skill position, just like WR. If Romo is not impeded by a few ounces of fabric above his elbow (and he isn't), then neither is Dez or his fellow wideouts. Hundreds of HOF players put up stellar numbers wearing sleeves mid-bicep and lower. The notion that they could have had even better careers sans sleeves is a flat out joke. People who think that short sleeves make a difference probably also believe that it's faster to get to first base when you slide.

[TimEOBrien]

QB is a skill position, just like WR. If Romo is not impeded by a few ounces of fabric above his elbow (and he isn't), then neither is Dez or his fellow wideouts. Hundreds of HOF players put up stellar numbers wearing sleeves mid-bicep and lower. The notion that they could have had even better careers sans sleeves is a flat out joke. People who think that short sleeves make a difference probably also believe that it's faster to get to first base when you slide.

QBs need a greater range of motion demanded by the high speed act of throwing a football. Because of this, you rarely - if ever - see a QB go no-sleeve - ala a lineman or WR. Now some, like Tony Homo and Orton choose to go loose sleeve because that's how they've always played.

BUT the main reason positions like lineman or WR choose to go no sleeve is because people try to grab and hold them for whatever the reason may be and the less fabric they have to grab, the less the opposing team can affect them and the more likely a ref will notice a hold/penalty. It makes a difference. Not a difference between a HOF career and a bust but rather between a play or two a game, which cannot affect stats all that much, but one play can drastically change the outcome of games.

Don't think of it as the careers changed, think of it as the games changed.

[shaydre1019]

Iirc uniwatch had a little story on how chad Johnson wanted big sleeves because he thought it looked cool and after the first serieshe went to the equipment manager asking him to fix them because he was getting held all over the place.

From personal wr experience I can tell you that tighter fitting jerseys are a HUGE advantage.

As for wrs choosing not to wear socks because they want an advantage... Some actually just wear long tights with white crew or ankle socks. So it's kinda the same thing and therefore not much of a stretch.

As far as the cowboy qb stripes go, idk how I feel yet. It definitely looks a little odd and isn't what I'm used to. But I can see why they did it. (before all the "it's another Nike swoosh" comments..) all the sleeve stripes are now close to the same height relative to the shoulder, previously they were wayyyy lower on the sleeved jerseys. I don't necessarily see it as better or worse just different.

[CrazyAnna]

Wow, what just happened in here?

[nuordr]

In watching the Cowboys and Raiders pre season game on ESPN I noticed something weird about Orton's jersey. He wears an ideal cut that older quarterbacks tend to use. His sleeves go down almost to his elbow but the sleeve stripes are way up almost near the shoulders. Kinda odd. Any other teams with sleeve stripes have this issue with players that use a longer sleeve cut?

Edit: also noticed Romo's jersey has the same problem with the sleeves. Bothersome.

2011:

2012:

Rest assured that Nike didn't F'up the uniform colors because they still look like crap from the previous 20+ years.

[BlueSky]

Thank you Blue Sky, missing the classic royal blue, green, and silver. It was clean, bright, professional classic, like the uniforms of the Packers, Bears, Steelers, Cowboys, etc. Don't recall anyone ever complaining about those unis up until they decided to change for the sake of change back in 2002

Those original Seahawk uniforms were dull and completely out-of-style by the late 1980's.

Not EVERYBODY in the NFL has to have "classic" uniforms. Not EVERYONE in the NFL has to have "block" numbers. Not EVERYONE in the NFL had a franchise 500 years ago and still think anything that was around in the 1960's is "traditional" and worth remembering.

Seattle is a relatively new franchise in a progressive part of the country with a new-age company (Nike) in its backyard. There is NO reason why they shouldn't be different. There is NO reason why they should be lumped in with the Chiefs and Browns and Bears. Let those old franchises still trot out their 40 year old uniforms, that Grandpa and Grandma used to love and enjoy. Let the Seahawks be unique to the rest of the NFL. Its not going to kill anyone to not have everyone dress the same and look the same (except for some of the old foggies that frequent these boards).

I had no idea you felt this way.

Which one's the "couldn't say that with a straight face" emoticon?

[nuordr]

Thank you Blue Sky, missing the classic royal blue, green, and silver. It was clean, bright, professional classic, like the uniforms of the Packers, Bears, Steelers, Cowboys, etc. Don't recall anyone ever complaining about those unis up until they decided to change for the sake of change back in 2002

Those original Seahawk uniforms were dull and completely out-of-style by the late 1980's.

Not EVERYBODY in the NFL has to have "classic" uniforms. Not EVERYONE in the NFL has to have "block" numbers. Not EVERYONE in the NFL had a franchise 500 years ago and still think anything that was around in the 1960's is "traditional" and worth remembering.

Seattle is a relatively new franchise in a progressive part of the country with a new-age company (Nike) in its backyard. There is NO reason why they shouldn't be different. There is NO reason why they should be lumped in with the Chiefs and Browns and Bears. Let those old franchises still trot out their 40 year old uniforms, that Grandpa and Grandma used to love and enjoy. Let the Seahawks be unique to the rest of the NFL. Its not going to kill anyone to not have everyone dress the same and look the same (except for some of the old foggies that frequent these boards).

Well said!

[Sport]

It's preseason, and like the spring thaw, or geese flying south for the winter, dennisbergan is back to tell everyone their opinions on football uniforms are wrong. He's so reliable you can mark it down on the calendar.

Listen, genius, my disdain for the Seahawks new uniforms, and I imagine many feel this way as well, has nothing to do with whether they're modern or anything like that. I'm 24, by the way, not exactly an old fogie. My disdain with the Seahawks new uniforms is because they're unattractive, make the players look silly, the helmet is worse than the two previous iterations, and they threw away a unique color for an overused navy blue.

If they had gone with a modern uniform that was an upgrade over the previous two, I'd be okay with it, but it's a step back and that's a shame because they've always been one of the better dressed teams in the league.

[nuordr]

It's preseason, and like the spring thaw, or geese flying south for the winter, dennisbergan is back to tell everyone their opinions on football uniforms are wrong. He's so reliable you can mark it down on the calendar.

Listen, genius, my disdain for the Seahawks new uniforms, and I imagine many feel this way as well, has nothing to do with whether they're modern or anything like that. I'm 24, by the way, not exactly an old fogie. My disdain with the Seahawks new uniforms is because they're unattractive, make the players look silly, the helmet is worse than the two previous iterations, and they threw away a unique color for an overused navy blue.

If they had gone with a modern uniform that was an upgrade over the previous two, I'd be okay with it, but it's a step back and that's a shame because they've always been one of the better dressed teams in the league.

I believe if they kept the previous colors and changed the design to the current set, then it would look amazing. However with that being said, I think the green makes the new uniform pop and that the modern design is a welcome change the North Pacific needs. By the way, I am 39 (an old fogie) and I base my opinions on teams not doing the same old, same old. I believe certain teams need to stay close to their origin by updating their designs, but not going full modern. But teams like the Seahawks who have been around since 1976 are relatively new to the league and a modern changes fits the team and the city. Kinda like when grunge was introduced out of Seattle, it was a change that needed to happen and it spurred alternative and indie rock that is popular today.

[ESTONES6]

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with this thread, or this site to be honest, recently. Has there been any release about the collar slogan on each teams' jersey?

[Coheed]

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with this thread, or this site to be honest, recently. Has there been any release about the collar slogan on each teams' jersey?

I've only seen it inside the Panthers' collars, and it says 'Keep Pounding". I think they are the only ones to actually have one. Either that, or the other teams have been hiding it really, really well.

[TheOldRoman]

But you certainly could (and should) design the uniform in such a way that the bolt doesn't need to have the same background color to appear consistent. That type of versatility is surely more desirable than being painted into a corner by a logo that can only appear on a white background.

That's part of my point. Having the bolt go on whatever background the jersey/pants are - great. Having the bolt always go on either white or navy - great. Having the bolt go on white on the navy jersey/pants but on navy on the white jersey/pants - bad. It's fine that the bolt is versatile to go on more than one background, but the way they apply it is bad.

Those original Seahawk uniforms were dull and completely out-of-style by the late 1980's.

Not EVERYBODY in the NFL has to have "classic" uniforms. Not EVERYONE in the NFL has to have "block" numbers. Not EVERYONE in the NFL had a franchise 500 years ago and still think anything that was around in the 1960's is "traditional" and worth remembering.

Seattle is a relatively new franchise in a progressive part of the country with a new-age company (Nike) in its backyard. There is NO reason why they shouldn't be different. There is NO reason why they should be lumped in with the Chiefs and Browns and Bears. Let those old franchises still trot out their 40 year old uniforms, that Grandpa and Grandma used to love and enjoy. Let the Seahawks be unique to the rest of the NFL. Its not going to kill anyone to not have everyone dress the same and look the same (except for some of the old foggies that frequent these boards).

Well said!

If you are agreeing with Dennis, you need to take a look in the mirror. He is wrong about everything and is most likely a troll.

[Buster]

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with this thread, or this site to be honest, recently. Has there been any release about the collar slogan on each teams' jersey?

I've only seen it inside the Panthers' collars, and it says 'Keep Pounding". I think they are the only ones to actually have one. Either that, or the other teams have been hiding it really, really well.

Redskins' 80th Anniversary uniforms:

[nuordr]

But you certainly could (and should) design the uniform in such a way that the bolt doesn't need to have the same background color to appear consistent. That type of versatility is surely more desirable than being painted into a corner by a logo that can only appear on a white background.

That's part of my point. Having the bolt go on whatever background the jersey/pants are - great. Having the bolt always go on either white or navy - great. Having the bolt go on white on the navy jersey/pants but on navy on the white jersey/pants - bad. It's fine that the bolt is versatile to go on more than one background, but the way they apply it is bad.

Those original Seahawk uniforms were dull and completely out-of-style by the late 1980's.

Not EVERYBODY in the NFL has to have "classic" uniforms. Not EVERYONE in the NFL has to have "block" numbers. Not EVERYONE in the NFL had a franchise 500 years ago and still think anything that was around in the 1960's is "traditional" and worth remembering.

Seattle is a relatively new franchise in a progressive part of the country with a new-age company (Nike) in its backyard. There is NO reason why they shouldn't be different. There is NO reason why they should be lumped in with the Chiefs and Browns and Bears. Let those old franchises still trot out their 40 year old uniforms, that Grandpa and Grandma used to love and enjoy. Let the Seahawks be unique to the rest of the NFL. Its not going to kill anyone to not have everyone dress the same and look the same (except for some of the old foggies that frequent these boards).

Well said!

If you are agreeing with Dennis, you need to take a look in the mirror. He is wrong about everything and is most likely a troll.

How is having an opinion other than your own wrong? Each of us have varying opinions and I don't hate against anyone who has one different from me. Besides, he has been a member since 2005 and he only has 800+ posts, so if he was trolling I would think he would be over 4000 posts by now.

[Buster]

Thank you Blue Sky, missing the classic royal blue, green, and silver. It was clean, bright, professional classic, like the uniforms of the Packers, Bears, Steelers, Cowboys, etc. Don't recall anyone ever complaining about those unis up until they decided to change for the sake of change back in 2002

Those original Seahawk uniforms were dull and completely out-of-style by the late 1980's.

Not EVERYBODY in the NFL has to have "classic" uniforms. Not EVERYONE in the NFL has to have "block" numbers. Not EVERYONE in the NFL had a franchise 500 years ago and still think anything that was around in the 1960's is "traditional" and worth remembering.

Seattle is a relatively new franchise in a progressive part of the country with a new-age company (Nike) in its backyard. There is NO reason why they shouldn't be different. There is NO reason why they should be lumped in with the Chiefs and Browns and Bears. Let those old franchises still trot out their 40 year old uniforms, that Grandpa and Grandma used to love and enjoy. Let the Seahawks be unique to the rest of the NFL. Its not going to kill anyone to not have everyone dress the same and look the same (except for some of the old foggies that frequent these boards).

I prefer the "classic" looks to the modern designs because most of the new ones look like crap. It's that simple.

I'll take a clean Bears or Browns look to a fancy new Seahawks or Jaguars mess any day. The looks have lasted because they look good. The Browns and Chiefs have no reason to stay the same for reasons of a winning tradition. Teams like the 49ers and Jets have returned to classic looks after experimenting with random black and new designs because they look better that way. If only the Vikings and Patriots would wake up...

I'm probably older than you but I'm hardly an "old foggie" as you said.