Jump to content

NIKE NFL Uniforms


29texan

Recommended Posts

You know, there's something cool about being able to look at pics of a team taken 43 years apart and instantly recognize it's them.

5780998.jpg

6503722.jpg

Is the current red that much brighter? Looked better back in the day.

I think I speak for many, many people when I say that this is - and has been - one of the best looks in all of football, at any level. The Chiefs have looked extraordinary since day one.

Sho' nuff.

*Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. 😁

|| dribbble || Behance ||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

You know, there's something cool about being able to look at pics of a team taken 43 years apart and instantly recognize it's them.

5780998.jpg

6503722.jpg

Is the current red that much brighter? Looked better back in the day.

I think I speak for many, many people when I say that this is - and has been - one of the best looks in all of football, at any level. The Chiefs have looked extraordinary since day one.

Sho' nuff.

Yeah, even though I'm a bit biased, there are no better looks in the NFL than the Chiefs and Raiders. Oh, did I mention the past Oregon set is one of my favorites in CFB! I guess I just like what I like.

Denver Nuggets Kansas City Chiefs Tampa Bay Rays 

Colorado Buffaloes Purdue Boilermakers Florida Gators

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, there's something cool about being able to look at pics of a team taken 43 years apart and instantly recognize it's them.

5780998.jpg

6503722.jpg

Is the current red that much brighter? Looked better back in the day.

Is it different or is it the result of better video/picture technology?

ColorWerx?

You know, there's something cool about being able to look at pics of a team taken 43 years apart and instantly...oh, wait. :D

4378078.jpg4881966.jpg

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People need something to complain about, it's as simple as that.

yes, and too often that something is an imaginary group of their fellow posters. :P

OUCH! You really got me there lol!

Seriously though, I'm sure Nike and other manufacturers have more science to prove that their %'s are correct than any of us do to prove that they are incorrect.

Denver Nuggets Kansas City Chiefs Tampa Bay Rays 

Colorado Buffaloes Purdue Boilermakers Florida Gators

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To go back a page or so, here's why you can't put a red facemask on the Giants helmets:

eli.png

A. It's garish and is an overload of that color on that space.

B. You lose the tie-in with the gray pants. The gray facemask is the only other gray element on the uniform besides the gray pants. Without one, the other looks silly.

C. It just looks so freaking semi-pro

and now cue posters coming in with "I dunna know. I kinda like it".

That would be an absolutely great look for Kansas Jayhawks football!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the way that everyone here bashes Nike, Adidas, UA, Russell, etc it makes you wonder what they think the teams should wear. Long gone are the days of single color twill on a one color jersey for every team. I think even the traditionalists can be happy about that... and if they were still that simple, we wouldn't have much to discuss!

People need something to complain about, it's as simple as that.

They hate every company. But they have become 4-5 of the biggest sportswear companies in the world for a reason, they are obviously doing something right...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the way that everyone here bashes Nike, Adidas, UA, Russell, etc it makes you wonder what they think the teams should wear. Long gone are the days of single color twill on a one color jersey for every team. I think even the traditionalists can be happy about that... and if they were still that simple, we wouldn't have much to discuss!

People need something to complain about, it's as simple as that.

They hate every company. But they have become 4-5 of the biggest sportswear companies in the world for a reason, they are obviously doing something right...

Business and marketing?

I still don't have a website, but I have a dribbble now! http://dribbble.com/andyharry

[The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the position, strategy or opinions of adidas and/or its brands.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, there's something cool about being able to look at pics of a team taken 43 years apart and instantly recognize it's them.

5780998.jpg

6503722.jpg

Is the current red that much brighter? Looked better back in the day.

I think I speak for many, many people when I say that this is - and has been - one of the best looks in all of football, at any level. The Chiefs have looked extraordinary since day one.

Sho' nuff.

Amen to that.

I love the giant arrowhead on the old Chiefs helmets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, there's something cool about being able to look at pics of a team taken 43 years apart and instantly recognize it's them.

5780998.jpg

6503722.jpg

Is the current red that much brighter? Looked better back in the day.

I think I speak for many, many people when I say that this is - and has been - one of the best looks in all of football, at any level. The Chiefs have looked extraordinary since day one.

Sho' nuff.

Amen to that.

I love the giant arrowhead on the old Chiefs helmets.

Me too. It's interesting that so many of the helmet logos were huge back then. Makes sense, though; few games were televised, so the unis were still geared towards the people in the stands.

TaylorJim4.jpg

tarkntn1.jpg

Manny%20Fernandez1.jpg

cogdillat1.JPG

The Dolphins helmet reminded me...anyone watching Hard Knocks? Episode 2 had a couple of unicentric moments. One showed equipment guys stripping stripes and decals off to recondition the helmets before the first preseason game; then, some shots looking up at people talking in the locker room showed how they've cut the 'sun' shape from the helmet into the ceiling.

BTW, does anybody know why inserting an image places it at the beginning of the post instead of where the cursor is? If I missed an explanation of that somewhere, I apologize. Most annoying.

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They hate every company. But they have become 4-5 of the biggest sportswear companies in the world for a reason, they are obviously doing something right...

Yes. Marketing. They got where they are due to a combination of circumstances. Possibly the most important thing was signing Michael Jordan. Anyway, it became cool to wear the swoosh. Reebok and Adidas were NEVER cool like Nike. That's why they are where they are.

OldRomanSig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean to tell me the company can produce uniforms that are 6.32* percent lighter when wet, 3.89* percent more breathable, 4.17* percent more durable, all to aid in keeping players 2.85* percent more cooler and helping them run 1.78* percent faster, can produce green/brown irridescent numbers for its favorite college football team...yet can't muster up the technology to match PMS 316???

What a farce, that swoosh. :P

* figures all arbitrarily pulled out of my ass...much like Nike and every other manufacturer does

Naw, those figures are all backed by science. How it applies to each individual is different, but used to full capacity, some of these things can increase the top end performance and efficiency of a human body. Of course, training harder can also do that, but when you inevitably hit the limits of your own body, when your body is at its absolute peak fitness level in its natural state, there's that performance technology in your gear that can essentially make your peak fitness level a little higher than it previously was. It might not make you faster per se, but it gives you the opportunity, so you can potentially be a little faster, and that can be the difference between Eli Manning being sacked or escaping and launching a bomb to David Tyree; a ball careening off Santonio Holmes' fingertips or him snagging a winning touchdown in the corner of the endzone.

This is the biggest load of marketing bull :censored: ever written. Im glad you drink the Kool-aid. If Santonio Holmes were playing in the 90s or even the 70s, he still makes the catch. The gear dIdnt make the catch, his natural ability did. Plus, if Nike's gear makes all the difference, I'm surprised he made the catch wearing a Reebok uniform.

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean to tell me the company can produce uniforms that are 6.32* percent lighter when wet, 3.89* percent more breathable, 4.17* percent more durable, all to aid in keeping players 2.85* percent more cooler and helping them run 1.78* percent faster, can produce green/brown irridescent numbers for its favorite college football team...yet can't muster up the technology to match PMS 316???

What a farce, that swoosh. :P

* figures all arbitrarily pulled out of my ass...much like Nike and every other manufacturer does

Naw, those figures are all backed by science. How it applies to each individual is different, but used to full capacity, some of these things can increase the top end performance and efficiency of a human body. Of course, training harder can also do that, but when you inevitably hit the limits of your own body, when your body is at its absolute peak fitness level in its natural state, there's that performance technology in your gear that can essentially make your peak fitness level a little higher than it previously was. It might not make you faster per se, but it gives you the opportunity, so you can potentially be a little faster, and that can be the difference between Eli Manning being sacked or escaping and launching a bomb to David Tyree; a ball careening off Santonio Holmes' fingertips or him snagging a winning touchdown in the corner of the endzone.

This is the biggest load of marketing bull :censored: ever written. Im glad you drink the Kool-aid. If Santonio Holmes were playing in the 90s or even the 70s, he still makes the catch. The gear dIdnt make the catch, his natural ability did. Plus, if Nike's gear makes all the difference, I'm surprised he made the catch wearing a Reebok uniform.

Did you read what he posted?

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the way that everyone here bashes Nike, Adidas, UA, Russell, etc it makes you wonder what they think the teams should wear. Long gone are the days of single color twill on a one color jersey for every team. I think even the traditionalists can be happy about that... and if they were still that simple, we wouldn't have much to discuss!

People need something to complain about, it's as simple as that.

They hate every company. But they have become 4-5 of the biggest sportswear companies in the world for a reason, they are obviously doing something right...

Business and marketing?

Hungry children in southeast Asia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean to tell me the company can produce uniforms that are 6.32* percent lighter when wet, 3.89* percent more breathable, 4.17* percent more durable, all to aid in keeping players 2.85* percent more cooler and helping them run 1.78* percent faster, can produce green/brown irridescent numbers for its favorite college football team...yet can't muster up the technology to match PMS 316??

What a farce, that swoosh. :P

* figures all arbitrarily pulled out of my ass...much like Nike and every other manufacturer does

Naw, those figures are all backed by science. How it applies to each individual is different, but used to full capacity, some of these things can increase the top end performance and efficiency of a human body. Of course, training harder can also do that, but when you inevitably hit the limits of your own body, when your body is at its absolute peak fitness level in its natural state, there's that performance technology in your gear that can essentially make your peak fitness level a little higher than it previously was. It might not make you faster per se, but it gives you the opportunity, so you can potentially be a little faster, and that can be the difference between Eli Manning being sacked or escaping and launching a bomb to David Tyree; a ball careening off Santonio Holmes' fingertips or him snagging a winning touchdown in the corner of the endzone.

This is the biggest load of marketing bull :censored: ever written. Im glad you drink the Kool-aid. If Santonio Holmes were playing in the 90s or even the 70s, he still makes the catch. The gear dIdnt make the catch, his natural ability did. Plus, if Nike's gear makes all the difference, I'm surprised he made the catch wearing a Reebok uniform.

Did you read what he posted?

Of course I did. Using marketing buzzwords and phrases doesn't make his point any better or more realistic. I have the potential to be faster and catch a football due to some jersey technology? Yeah, lol, ok. Using reality and physics back here on Earth, a jersey weighing 19 ounces instead of 21 ounces isn't going to make one bit of difference when I'm 230 lbs of muscle. Last I checked, potential does not guarantee anything. Trying to pretend that Super Bowl history could potentially change because a jersey has the potential to do something is laughable. I have the potential to win Powerball tonight. I probably won't.

Are we going to blame potential Super Bowl mishaps next year on the added weight of knee and thigh pads?

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly, natural genetic limitations and the level at which you train will have the biggest impact on your performance, and no jersey will help you (or at least not hinder you as much) if you're not at peak condition. But all things being equal, two guys with equal physical capacity and at equal condition, it could (and likely has) be proven that there would be some difference between the one wearing (just making up numbers here) 32 ounces of jersey and the one wearing 16. Again, it's only really a factor if all other things are equal, and it might not even be an observable difference (meaning in a sprint, we're talking about .0001 ms or something) but it's there, and some plays are so close that I'm not sure why you wouldn't take any edge you can get - especially if you know that the other guy is wearing them! Hell, look at swimming - the difference in materials clearly has a more dramatic effect, but it's not an entirely irrelevant comparison.

Of course the player makes the plays, not the jersey. Nobody has ever argued that or said that a jersey makes you better. But it's foolish to think that 16oz of material wouldn't hinder you less than 32oz, and that a dry uniform wouldn't weigh less than a wet one, etc.

That being said, it sucks that this tech needs to be so ugly. Not necessarily the cuts, which should be irrelevant unless some team uses full colored panels, but the differences in colors caused by the different materials and the way sweat affects them.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, look at swimming - the difference in materials clearly has a more dramatic effect, but it's not an entirely irrelevant comparison.

I candidly agree with a lot of your post, but two points: In swimming, the material does matter, but Olympic and World records have been set AFTER the banning of the fastsuits, so it's clear that the suit wasn't the sole reason for fast speeds.

If Nike cut down on the weight of football jerseys by 50% (from 32 oz to 16 oz), then we'd have a decent debate. But the weight cuts are usually no more than 10% (and usually less than 5%), which, using your example would cut a 32 oz jersey down to 28.8 oz. The noticeable gains are probably 0.0000000000000001 ms.

I'm sure you've watched SportScience and all the variables they use when determining how crazy plays evolve. I have yet to see them say the 4% cut in jersey weight was a substantial contributing factor.

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, look at swimming - the difference in materials clearly has a more dramatic effect, but it's not an entirely irrelevant comparison.

I candidly agree with a lot of your post, but two points: In swimming, the material does matter, but Olympic and World records have been set AFTER the banning of the fastsuits, so it's clear that the suit wasn't the sole reason for fast speeds.

If Nike cut down on the weight of football jerseys by 50% (from 32 oz to 16 oz), then we'd have a decent debate. But the weight cuts are usually no more than 10% (and usually less than 5%), which, using your example would cut a 32 oz jersey down to 28.8 oz. The noticeable gains are probably 0.0000000000000001 ms.

That's irrelevant, because as AH alluded to in his post, training methods and athletic abillity tends to improve over time, so while those records may have been broken after the banning, they may have been broken even more with the fastsuits. We'll never know of course, but while it's clear that suits / uniform were not the sole reason for fast speeds (I don't know why you keep saying "sole" - nobody has EVER said that when "defending" the new technology) there was certainly an impact.

Also, swimming is really no different than running, except that instead of battling air resistance, you're fighting water, so a suit would have a more dramatic effect since the resistance is so more, but that doesn't mean for a second that there would be the same kind of effect in air, even if it's exponentially less.

I mean car makers are constantly trying to improve aerodynamics by adding spoilers or changing the slope of the windshield etc, and really the body of a car is just a uniform for the engine.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean car makers are constantly trying to improve aerodynamics by adding spoilers or changing the slope of the windshield etc, and really the body of a car is just a uniform for the engine.

Aerodynamics is different than actual weight though. Maybe we should be talking about the aerodynamics of a football helmet.

Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly, natural genetic limitations and the level at which you train will have the biggest impact on your performance, and no jersey will help you (or at least not hinder you as much) if you're not at peak condition. But all things being equal, two guys with equal physical capacity and at equal condition, it could (and likely has) be proven that there would be some difference between the one wearing (just making up numbers here) 32 ounces of jersey and the one wearing 16. Again, it's only really a factor if all other things are equal, and it might not even be an observable difference (meaning in a sprint, we're talking about .0001 ms or something) but it's there, and some plays are so close that I'm not sure why you wouldn't take any edge you can get - especially if you know that the other guy is wearing them! Hell, look at swimming - the difference in materials clearly has a more dramatic effect, but it's not an entirely irrelevant comparison.

Of course the player makes the plays, not the jersey. Nobody has ever argued that or said that a jersey makes you better. But it's foolish to think that 16oz of material wouldn't hinder you less than 32oz, and that a dry uniform wouldn't weigh less than a wet one, etc.

That being said, it sucks that this tech needs to be so ugly. Not necessarily the cuts, which should be irrelevant unless some team uses full colored panels, but the differences in colors caused by the different materials and the way sweat affects them.

1. Whether or not there's a difference, and if there is, how much of one, doesn't matter. It's whether the players think there's a difference, and with guys who have to be forced to wear leg pads 'cause they think it slows them down, well, we have our answer on that.

2. Couldn't agree more. What really puzzles me is that the collars and jammed up shoulders - there's a Jags player I saw whose swoosh actually overruns part of his TV number on one side - and all the other screwy stuff is not subtle. It's right out there and just looks awful and you'd think a company of their size and reputation would be able to grasp it if a board full of us "uni-tards" can. :D

Hell, look at swimming - the difference in materials clearly has a more dramatic effect, but it's not an entirely irrelevant comparison.

I candidly agree with a lot of your post, but two points: In swimming, the material does matter, but Olympic and World records have been set AFTER the banning of the fastsuits, so it's clear that the suit wasn't the sole reason for fast speeds.

If Nike cut down on the weight of football jerseys by 50% (from 32 oz to 16 oz), then we'd have a decent debate. But the weight cuts are usually no more than 10% (and usually less than 5%), which, using your example would cut a 32 oz jersey down to 28.8 oz. The noticeable gains are probably 0.0000000000000001 ms.

That's irrelevant, because as AH alluded to in his post, training methods and athletic abillity tends to improve over time, so while those records may have been broken after the banning, they may have been broken even more with the fastsuits. We'll never know of course, but while it's clear that suits / uniform were not the sole reason for fast speeds (I don't know why you keep saying "sole" - nobody has EVER said that when "defending" the new technology) there was certainly an impact.

Also, swimming is really no different than running, except that instead of battling air resistance, you're fighting water, so a suit would have a more dramatic effect since the resistance is so more, but that doesn't mean for a second that there would be the same kind of effect in air, even if it's exponentially less.

I mean car makers are constantly trying to improve aerodynamics by adding spoilers or changing the slope of the windshield etc, and really the body of a car is just a uniform for the engine.

I thought of something along those lines that takes some imagination to see in your head. I drive a first-gen Nissan Xterra, which has the aerodynamics of a brick wall, and I wondered if future designers could include an automatic active spoiler for the front of such vehicles. It would have to come out at say 50 MPH and as for how it would work, think of how the Batmobile morphs. In my idea body panels would be able to articulate and would deploy outwards slightly ahead of the vehicle and form into a bullet shape similar to the bows on modern ships. If it would gain even a few MPG at highway speeds it would radically impact fuel usage if used on the millions of inefficient vehicles on the road.

Or they could just stop building bricks like my X and make new vehicles more aerodynamic, which is pretty much what's happening. B)

full-2002-Nissan-Xterra_24843_1.jpg

(Not mine but similar.)

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.