Jump to content

NIKE NFL Uniforms


29texan

Recommended Posts

Here's my stance on facemasks - my opinion; take it with a grain of salt:

Facemasks should either be the color of the helmet, or a darker color. Personally, I don't care for a facemask to be a lighter color than the helmet.

Gray should be avoided, unless it is a team color.

I consider the facemask to be part of the helmet itself; NOT a separate piece of equipment. Why draw attention to it as if it is an "add-on" of sorts to the helmet?

I would prefer the Giants to utilize Blue facemasks, the Chiefs to use Red facemasks, but the Patriots and Cowboys to both use Navy. Raiders should use Black. Redskins to use Burgundy. Cardinals - Red.

I'm curious if anyone else here feels this way; don't worry - I know most of you disagree with this!

I gotta disagree with that too.

In the late 70s having a non-gray colored facemask was the big trend going on, a trend that so many NFL clubs were adopting.

When the NYG went back to their 60s look around 2000 they apparently wanted to keep them as original as possible, that gray mask totally works for that look, especially due to the gray pants ... white or blue would not have, IMO.

I've always liked the look of a gray mask with a white helmet (exception would be the Texas Longhorns). New England's 60s Boston throwback looked alot better with the gray mask than it currently does with their 80s throwback with the white mask. A few seasons before NE rebranded to the Flying-Elvis look they switched their facemask from white to red .... I thought it looked really good with the white jersey and red pants on the road, but not so good with the home uni of the red jersey-white pants.

The Chiefs in a red facemask? I hope they never do that, their white mask totally compliments the white background of the arrowhead logo.

Everyone really has their own different opinions which sure shows on this board. I'm not a hater of the gray mask like many are. I think the gray looks especially good on San Diego's throwbacks, Buffalo and Arizona's white helmets, Dallas' throwback helmets, and exceptional on the Redskins spear-n-feather throwback-look from 2002. If Washington ever brought back that look I would hope that they keep it gray, but if they modernized it and wanted to get off the gray, it would probably look good if they were able to match the facemask with the same gold coloring on the spare-n-feather logo.

AP02082906582.jpg

I know that this has been said a billion times, but if they could just remove black from the helmet, the Chiefs uniforms would be perfect.

That to me is madness!

KC should never do away with the black outline, it would take away the accent which is needed to make it look like the tip of an arrow, not to mention how the black shadow makes the interlocking KC standout. I can't even fathom as to how bad that would look.

kc_chiefs_logo.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This is no different than Nike, Reebok, and Adidas trying to make their basketball shoe the lightest. It isn't BS, they are attempting to use the most current technology in a way that also turns a profit. These jerseys are no different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is no different than Nike, Reebok, and Adidas trying to make their basketball shoe the lightest. It isn't BS, they are attempting to use the most current technology in a way that also turns a profit. These jerseys are no different.

It's all based on marketing that can't prove significant results though. The lightest basketball shoe has the potential to make you think you can potentially jump .0000000000001 inches higher than the previous pair. How more vague can that get sentence get? Not much. Nike and Adidas know this too - they're not dumb. If you test one Nike jersey cut over another and don't see a difference, you can't sue Nike, because they didn't promise anything. They just gave you the potential. The fact that you didn't live up to the potential is your fault.

Let me know when that .000000000001 inch makes a difference.

It's not science. It's marketing. Michael Jordan didn't become rich because his shoes turned everyone into basketball superstars.

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is no different than Nike, Reebok, and Adidas trying to make their basketball shoe the lightest. It isn't BS, they are attempting to use the most current technology in a way that also turns a profit. These jerseys are no different.

It's all based on marketing that can't prove significant results though. The lightest basketball shoe has the potential to make you think you can potentially jump .0000000000001 inches higher than the previous pair. How more vague can that get sentence get? Not much. Nike and Adidas know this too - they're not dumb. If you test one Nike jersey cut over another and don't see a difference, you can't sue Nike, because they didn't promise anything. They just gave you the potential. The fact that you didn't live up to the potential is your fault.

Let me know when that .000000000001 inch makes a difference.

It's not science. It's marketing. Michael Jordan didn't become rich because his shoes turned everyone into basketball superstars.

I haven't read all the marketing stuff, but are they really saying that you'll run x% faster? The x would be so small that it wouldn't get that much attention.

What they can say is that their jersey is x% lighter, or dries y% faster, is z% stronger, etc. These are all easily measurable figures. You could take an athlete and have them run some sample set of sprints in jersey a, and then some in jersey b, and see if there's enough of a pattern to justify a claim that you can run faster in jersey a than b. NOT that jersey a makes you faster than jersey b, but that you can run faster in a than b. I really don't think that's an absurd claim at all.

We HAVE to get off this point that the marketers are saying that these shoes will turn you in to superstars, or this jersey will make you faster, or these gloves will make you catch better, and rephrase as you can jump higher in these shoes, you can run faster in these jerseys, and you can catch better in these gloves. It's a HUGE difference.

"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

This is no different than Nike, Reebok, and Adidas trying to make their basketball shoe the lightest. It isn't BS, they are attempting to use the most current technology in a way that also turns a profit. These jerseys are no different.

It's all based on marketing that can't prove significant results though. The lightest basketball shoe has the potential to make you think you can potentially jump .0000000000001 inches higher than the previous pair. How more vague can that get sentence get? Not much. Nike and Adidas know this too - they're not dumb. If you test one Nike jersey cut over another and don't see a difference, you can't sue Nike, because they didn't promise anything. They just gave you the potential. The fact that you didn't live up to the potential is your fault.

Let me know when that .000000000001 inch makes a difference.

It's not science. It's marketing. Michael Jordan didn't become rich because his shoes turned everyone into basketball superstars.

I haven't read all the marketing stuff, but are they really saying that you'll run x% faster? The x would be so small that it wouldn't get that much attention.

What they can say is that their jersey is x% lighter, or dries y% faster, is z% stronger, etc. These are all easily measurable figures. You could take an athlete and have them run some sample set of sprints in jersey a, and then some in jersey b, and see if there's enough of a pattern to justify a claim that you can run faster in jersey a than b. NOT that jersey a makes you faster than jersey b, but that you can run faster in a than b. I really don't think that's an absurd claim at all.

We HAVE to get off this point that the marketers are saying that these shoes will turn you in to superstars, or this jersey will make you faster, or these gloves will make you catch better, and rephrase as you can jump higher in these shoes, you can run faster in these jerseys, and you can catch better in these gloves. It's a HUGE difference.

Exactly. The gear isn't going to turn some random guy into a world-beater, but it'll help a world-beater find that extra edge to beat out their opponent. The swimsuits are the perfect example. Records were being set before & after their inclusion, but the ones in question were so dramatically affecting the numbers they were banned. The uniform is like any other piece of equipment: it's about who's wearing/using it. I can't hit any HR's with a corked bat, but a professional baseball player with warning track power will. And if some Nike/Reebok/adidas/UA shirt makes you feel x% lighter and fresher at the end of a game so you can beat your opponent, so be it.

Go Astros!

Go Texans!

Go Rockets!

Go Javelinas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is no different than Nike, Reebok, and Adidas trying to make their basketball shoe the lightest. It isn't BS, they are attempting to use the most current technology in a way that also turns a profit. These jerseys are no different.

It's all based on marketing that can't prove significant results though. The lightest basketball shoe has the potential to make you think you can potentially jump .0000000000001 inches higher than the previous pair. How more vague can that get sentence get? Not much. Nike and Adidas know this too - they're not dumb. If you test one Nike jersey cut over another and don't see a difference, you can't sue Nike, because they didn't promise anything. They just gave you the potential. The fact that you didn't live up to the potential is your fault.

Let me know when that .000000000001 inch makes a difference.

It's not science. It's marketing. Michael Jordan didn't become rich because his shoes turned everyone into basketball superstars.

I haven't read all the marketing stuff, but are they really saying that you'll run x% faster? The x would be so small that it wouldn't get that much attention.

What they can say is that their jersey is x% lighter, or dries y% faster, is z% stronger, etc. These are all easily measurable figures. You could take an athlete and have them run some sample set of sprints in jersey a, and then some in jersey b, and see if there's enough of a pattern to justify a claim that you can run faster in jersey a than b. NOT that jersey a makes you faster than jersey b, but that you can run faster in a than b. I really don't think that's an absurd claim at all.

We HAVE to get off this point that the marketers are saying that these shoes will turn you in to superstars, or this jersey will make you faster, or these gloves will make you catch better, and rephrase as you can jump higher in these shoes, you can run faster in these jerseys, and you can catch better in these gloves. It's a HUGE difference.

Nike did, in fact, make the claim that its Olympic track suits were faster, at least compared to prior models.

Nike Pro TurboSpeed: Our fastest ever: Based on wind tunnel data, it is up to 0.023 seconds faster over 100m than our previous track uniform, which can be the difference between finishing on the podium or not..

From a February Nike press release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is no different than Nike, Reebok, and Adidas trying to make their basketball shoe the lightest. It isn't BS, they are attempting to use the most current technology in a way that also turns a profit. These jerseys are no different.

It's all based on marketing that can't prove significant results though. The lightest basketball shoe has the potential to make you think you can potentially jump .0000000000001 inches higher than the previous pair. How more vague can that get sentence get? Not much. Nike and Adidas know this too - they're not dumb. If you test one Nike jersey cut over another and don't see a difference, you can't sue Nike, because they didn't promise anything. They just gave you the potential. The fact that you didn't live up to the potential is your fault.

Let me know when that .000000000001 inch makes a difference.

It's not science. It's marketing. Michael Jordan didn't become rich because his shoes turned everyone into basketball superstars.

I haven't read all the marketing stuff, but are they really saying that you'll run x% faster? The x would be so small that it wouldn't get that much attention.

What they can say is that their jersey is x% lighter, or dries y% faster, is z% stronger, etc. These are all easily measurable figures. You could take an athlete and have them run some sample set of sprints in jersey a, and then some in jersey b, and see if there's enough of a pattern to justify a claim that you can run faster in jersey a than b. NOT that jersey a makes you faster than jersey b, but that you can run faster in a than b. I really don't think that's an absurd claim at all.

We HAVE to get off this point that the marketers are saying that these shoes will turn you in to superstars, or this jersey will make you faster, or these gloves will make you catch better, and rephrase as you can jump higher in these shoes, you can run faster in these jerseys, and you can catch better in these gloves. It's a HUGE difference.

I don't doubt that there are quantifiable advantages to some of these materials and equipment, just like I don't doubt that the claims are overblown by the marketing team (that's what marketing teams are paid to do)... but the real question is what you asked earlier; Why does it have to be ugly?

And the answer that some of us are at least considering, is that if it isn't noticeable (sweat marks for the breathable panels, cut-off collars for the flywire) then how does Nike get any sort of bump from it?

Think about it. Complaints about the half collars are everywhere. TV announcers are discussing it. A site I visit called the Daily Norseman has a big thread of people bitching about the collars, and this particular site never discusses uniforms (I've had my manhood questioned for bringing up uniforms there). But you know the old saying... there's no such thing as bad publicity. Nike might be loving the complaints... because every time someone mentions the collars the term "flywire" comes up.

And that's what annoys me about Nike. I don't hate all their designs (about half, maybe?)... their college work is certainly better than their main competitors. But so much of what Nike does feels like it's number one about Nike and number two about the client. That might be just my perception, but you look at some of these decisions and its hard to argue. People keep saying that the teams had the final say, but I bet the teams weren't told that different parts of the jerseys were gonna change color by halftime.

And on top of that, there's another question. What difference does an equipment advantage make if everyone is wearing the same equipment? Seriously, let's say for a minute this jersey will make me 5% faster... but we're BOTH wearing it. That's back to square one, innit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Vet, it's not saying "YOU WILL BE BETTER IN OUR EQUIPMENT!" but there are certain advantages to the new materials.

For example, I often wear Nike basketball shoes and I CAN jump higher with zoom air than I can without it. Now even if their marketing has gotten in my head and created a placebo that is GREAT! Another example is I have a Nike Storm Fit jacket, one day me and my mom were walking and it started pouring, I didn't get wet for an hour of hard rain, she was drenched in minutes.

With all the time and energy that Nike puts into their products I have NO DOUBT that they create small advantages, even if the swoosh is a placebo.

Denver Nuggets Kansas City Chiefs Tampa Bay Rays 

Colorado Buffaloes Purdue Boilermakers Florida Gators

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they can say is that their jersey is x% lighter, or dries y% faster, is z% stronger, etc. These are all easily measurable figures.

Has anyone other than Nike measured these measurable figures? Is Tom Brady going home at night, weighing his jerseys, and saying "Hey, this year's jersey is 2.3% lighter than last year's! Nike is the best!"

If jersey weight really was of supreme importance, then every fast guy would be wearing 1, 11, 21, 31, etc. because the twill would be lighter than any other combination.

You could take an athlete and have them run some sample set of sprints in jersey a, and then some in jersey b, and see if there's enough of a pattern to justify a claim that you can run faster in jersey a than b. NOT that jersey a makes you faster than jersey b, but that you can run faster in a than b. I really don't think that's an absurd claim at all.

Not absurd, but actual tests like that are not done regularly (or at all), either.

We HAVE to get off this point that the marketers are saying that these shoes will turn you in to superstars, or this jersey will make you faster, or these gloves will make you catch better, and rephrase as you can jump higher in these shoes, you can run faster in these jerseys, and you can catch better in these gloves. It's a HUGE difference.

When you change from "you will do this" to "you can do this", then you enter doubt and chance into the equation, and it's less scientific and more marketing.

If you ran the 100 meters, and I gave you a pill and said "You have to potential to run 4% or even 6% faster", there's no way to blame me if you don't achieve the results I marketed. My claim might be true, but it's no way scientific, and it's ultimately your fault that you didn't train harder or run faster. Just great marketing that sounds good but doesn't actually promise anything.

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they can say is that their jersey is x% lighter, or dries y% faster, is z% stronger, etc. These are all easily measurable figures.

Has anyone other than Nike measured these measurable figures? Is Tom Brady going home at night, weighing his jerseys, and saying "Hey, this year's jersey is 2.3% lighter than last year's! Nike is the best!"

If jersey weight really was of supreme importance, then every fast guy would be wearing 1, 11, 21, 31, etc. because the twill would be lighter than any other combination.

You could take an athlete and have them run some sample set of sprints in jersey a, and then some in jersey b, and see if there's enough of a pattern to justify a claim that you can run faster in jersey a than b. NOT that jersey a makes you faster than jersey b, but that you can run faster in a than b. I really don't think that's an absurd claim at all.

Not absurd, but actual tests like that are not done regularly (or at all), either.

We HAVE to get off this point that the marketers are saying that these shoes will turn you in to superstars, or this jersey will make you faster, or these gloves will make you catch better, and rephrase as you can jump higher in these shoes, you can run faster in these jerseys, and you can catch better in these gloves. It's a HUGE difference.

When you change from "you will do this" to "you can do this", then you enter doubt and chance into the equation, and it's less scientific and more marketing.

If you ran the 100 meters, and I gave you a pill and said "You have to potential to run 4% or even 6% faster", there's no way to blame me if you don't achieve the results I marketed. My claim might be true, but it's no way scientific, and it's ultimately your fault that you didn't train harder or run faster. Just great marketing that sounds good but doesn't actually promise anything.

99.9% of uniform innovation is aesthetic and comfort driven. there are those rare occasions where a paradigm shift is made e.g. leather & canvas ---> wool flannel --> durene ---> double knit polyester ---> poly/spandex blends ---> moisture wicking nylon blends.

so roughly about every decade you see a major advancement in uniform technology but even from generation to generation the only real benefit is player comfort.

as far as football tech goes we've been splitting hairs for quite some time as the uniforms are so light any further improvements are completely overshadowed by the limitations of the actual protective equipment (weight and restricted movement).

in summary it's all about the press releases and marketing baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

224597_10150971105491722_452330993_n.jpg

Seattle Seahawks ‏@Seahawks

@PeteCarroll: "We have a big announcement. The Seahawks will be wearing grey pants and white tops Friday night."

Looks like the hawks are trying out all their combos during the preseason. I like the look, especially considering it will be under the lights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

224597_10150971105491722_452330993_n.jpg

Seattle Seahawks ‏@Seahawks

@PeteCarroll: "We have a big announcement. The Seahawks will be wearing grey pants and white tops Friday night."

Looks like the hawks are trying out all their combos during the preseason. I like the look, especially considering it will be under the lights.

Pete Carroll calls jerseys "tops"? Guess their uniforms are their outfits, or is it costumes?

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

224597_10150971105491722_452330993_n.jpg

Seattle Seahawks ‏@Seahawks

@PeteCarroll: "We have a big announcement. The Seahawks will be wearing grey pants and white tops Friday night."

Looks like the hawks are trying out all their combos during the preseason. I like the look, especially considering it will be under the lights.

Pete Carroll calls jerseys "tops"? Guess their uniforms are their outfits, or is it costumes?

I prefer the blue trousers, paired with the white. But really this is no more annoying than soccer uniforms call "kits" and their field called a "pitch".

Reports out of Cleveland confirming that the Browns will wear brown jerseys for their final 2 preseason games, and final 5 home games of the season. Still only white pants I suppose, how exciting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer the blue trousers, paired with the white. But really this is no more annoying than soccer uniforms call "kits" and their field called a "pitch".

Soccer-football has been around longer than American-football, and in soccer the playing surface has ALWAYS been known as the 'pitch', not a 'field' or 'gridiron' as we call it in our American game.

Same thing goes with the 'kits' ...

There's nothing that should be annoying about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

224597_10150971105491722_452330993_n.jpg

Seattle Seahawks ‏@Seahawks

@PeteCarroll: "We have a big announcement. The Seahawks will be wearing grey pants and white tops Friday night."

Looks like the hawks are trying out all their combos during the preseason. I like the look, especially considering it will be under the lights.

Pete Carroll calls jerseys "tops"? Guess their uniforms are their outfits, or is it costumes?

I prefer the blue trousers, paired with the white. But really this is no more annoying than soccer uniforms call "kits" and their field called a "pitch".

Reports out of Cleveland confirming that the Browns will wear brown jerseys for their final 2 preseason games, and final 5 home games of the season. Still only white pants I suppose, how exciting...

My favorite combos for the seahawks home and road both include the gray pants. i like tht the grey isnt very dark

StLouisCardinals.png

CowboysClassic_zpsb3d9923d.png

#9 LSU vs. TCU

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.

Come on! Nike may be a strong player in actual athletic wear, but adidas and Reebok are both extremely strong in the niche market of casual athletic fashion. Run DMC? :P

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.

Good point. Beyond the scientific data, it's been hypothesized (with much support) that the mental aspects actually outweigh the physical aspects.

This is no different than Nike, Reebok, and Adidas trying to make their basketball shoe the lightest. It isn't BS, they are attempting to use the most current technology in a way that also turns a profit. These jerseys are no different.

It's all based on marketing that can't prove significant results though. The lightest basketball shoe has the potential to make you think you can potentially jump .0000000000001 inches higher than the previous pair. How more vague can that get sentence get? Not much. Nike and Adidas know this too - they're not dumb. If you test one Nike jersey cut over another and don't see a difference, you can't sue Nike, because they didn't promise anything. They just gave you the potential. The fact that you didn't live up to the potential is your fault.

Let me know when that .000000000001 inch makes a difference.

It's not science. It's marketing. Michael Jordan didn't become rich because his shoes turned everyone into basketball superstars.

Again, you're not grasping the point. I guess the only way to spell it out is this: Imagine you have two identical individuals. They are clones, for all intents and purposes, and they are at their peak physical limits, meaning their bodies are each as fast, agile, coordinated and strong as they can possibly be in a natural state. There are going to be potential benefits to wearing a garment that is lighter, more breathable, less constricting, more aerodynamic, etc., and however small those benefits are, it still can mean the difference between running 100m in 9.58 or 9.59, all things being equal. Of course there are other factors, like reaction time, mental preparation and what have you, but all things being equal is the mantra of science. This isn't a 'what if' type of situation. 'If you do the work, then the garment works for you' is a good way to put it.

BBTV made a great analogy: Take two vehicles of the same weight, drivetrain and power output, but skin one like a Scion xB and the other like a Ferrari, and there's a difference in performance. Take two identical Ferraris, one with just a driver and the other with a driver and three passengers, and there's a difference in performance. Take two identical Hondas, let one rust and corrode while keeping the other lubricated to perfection, and there's a difference in performance. No matter how you slice it, optimizing aerodynamics, shaving weight and increasing mobility can all increase the performance and efficiency of any moving object with all other things being equal.

You're focusing on the idea that these garments claim to 'make you faster/quicker/stronger' when in actuality, they claim that they 'can make you faster/quicker/stronger', something that is absolutely true. It's using science to market as well as marketing with science. These types of claims cannot be made without scientific backing.

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

So does anyone else not like how these new Nike jerseys look ?two toned? when they get wet?

Read back a few pages in this thread and you'll find that many share this sentiment.

Ah, ok I found it... it was more than a few pages though. It was like 11 pages back :grin:

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.