NIKE NFL Uniforms

[nuordr]

The Seattle grey is not as bad as I thought it would be, but then again anything is better than white on white.

The grey is too light but T.O. looks great with the white shoes.

Agreed that the grey is too light, but I think it still looks better then the white on white.

.

Upon further review ... I don't agree about the Seahawks gray pants being too light ... I think they've got it just right, IMO

I also think they should shelf the blue pants at home, but when wearing them on the road get some dominantly white or gray socks with them.

NO! They need to stick with the monochrome as it is their best look.

The problem with the gray pants for me is that they are in matte. They needs to have a glossy finish so that do not look so dull.

[CS85]

Here are the Seahawks tonight:

Still horrible. It makes me cringe to see these in action, the downgrade was so incredibly stellar.

[Jezus_Ghoti]

I think those gray pants are a big step down from the navy pants, because they lack any lime green and introduce a ton of a color (gray) that is nowhere to be seen on the jersey.

They really, really screwed up the color balance in these new uniforms.

[sportstar1212]

I think those gray pants are a big step down from the navy pants, because they lack any lime green and introduce a ton of a color (gray) that is nowhere to be seen on the jersey.

They really, really screwed up the color balance in these new uniforms.

This x1000

[knnhrvy16]

I still wish Seattle had made a sleeve stripe out of that feather pattern on the pants, and went with that instead of the jersey design they went with. I think it would've unified the set much, much more. As it stands now, I can't help but think of how jumbled the set looks what with the jersey and pants going in different directions. The set looked rushed from day one, and it hasn't grown on me since.

Okay, sure that feather pattern is on the collar. But, is it really something you'd observe first from a distance? Heck, even 10 feet away? It's too small of a use for it to work for me, especially where the rest of the jersey is so bold. If you've got a great element like the feather pattern, showcase it! Embrace it! Don't make it the focal point of the pants while drowning it underneath another competing element on the jersey. If the Seahawks were to have executed this set as well as I think they could have, to me they'd have broken into the top-5 of the NFL. As it stands now, however, they have a set with too many ideas crammed together and canceling each other out, and for that I can't rank them very high at all on my personal list.

[Sport]

I think those gray pants are a big step down from the navy pants, because they lack any lime green and introduce a ton of a color (gray) that is nowhere to be seen on the jersey.

They really, really screwed up the color balance in these new uniforms.

I disagree. The navy pants with the white jersey screw up the color balance. The lime green stripe on those pants is the only place that color appears that heavily on the whole uniform and it looks really out of place.

What they should've done is make the pants stripe match the numbers. The gray and white pants should've gotten navy stripes with small green stripes bordering it. On the blue pants they should've gotten gray stripes with green stripes bordering it. Also, those little tulips in the pant stripe are absolutely awful looking and look out of place with everything in that uniform.

OR

They should've made the gray stripe on the hawk on the helmet green and that would've balanced the big green stripe on the blue pants.

But the uniform they wore against KC was more balanced than the one they wore against Denver.

[IceCap]

IIRC, the other non-Swift team, Switzerland, made a surprise run to the semifinals in that tourney, as well.

They did indeed.

Maybe the Swedish were just a better hockey team to being with, which would mean all else was not equal. They probably would have scored a lot more goals if they were wearing the Swift.

Except all else wasn't equal and Sweden was just the best hockey team that tournament. I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread argue that the performance benefits in a uniform were so much that you would be able to easily tell a difference, especially one as big as winning an entire tournament. The biggest difference is in how comfortable the player is which goes together with how they perceive any difference in their head.

sounds like Sweden was the better team. im not saying the equipment makes you better than everyone else, but allows you to perform at your best.

So...you guys want to be able to have your cake and eat it too?

See andrew, who I usually find myself agreeing with, gave his "clone" example a few pages back. That if you have two athletes in peak physical condition then these newer types of uniforms will allow them the opportunity to improve performance. The problem is that this scenario does not exist. No two athletes, even if both are at the peak of physical fitness, are alike.

So really, the best we can do in comparing these sort of things is to simply compare performances of elite athletes against one and other, because the whole "clone" thing just isn't....real.

So you have an Olympic ice hockey tournament. Each team's comprised of the best their country has. It's the elite of the world. Did Sweden have the better team that year? Did Sweden have the best team that year? Yeah, they did. And that best team evidently wasn't hindered by using "old" uniform technology. Which is my point. Elite vs elite, the best we can really hope for since human cloning isn't a thing yet, and one side wasn't hindered by the old baggy, sweaty uniforms.

Factor in Switzerland's surprise run to the semis that year, and statistically speaking the performance of teams that wore the new Swift uniforms didn't fare any better then the teams that wore old style sweaters and socks.

Now as for the "it's all in their heads" argument, well I played hockey, and I'm looking to get back into it. I can't speak for everyone who's ever played the game, but personally, as a goalie, I prefer baggy sweaters. I find them less restricting then the newer tighter style of sweaters that are, surprisingly, designed to be less restricting.

[zachintosh66]

i dont mind the seahawks new uni... except the pants stripe...

[DeFrank]

The Seahawks really blew this thing to kingdom come.

I was a partial fan, but I'm looking at pictures now and it's hitting me....

THEY ARE BORING. SOMEHOW Nike's new super awesome Oregon team woohoo is BORING. Navy and grey? Seriously? They look so drab, but already dated. I'm revising my grade from a C+ to an F. This is pathetic.

[kmart717]

For my birthday yesterday my parents got me an RG3 game jersey and I must say I love the material. The replica jerseys I had from rebok were nice but the numbers would wear away in the wash but with the game jerseys from Nike the numbers seem so much more durable

[OaklandRaider]

I own raider elite jerseys and yesterday was the first time I got to see a speed cut elite of the 49ers jersey at the sf Nike store. How do the heat zones look on the average fan? Normally, jerseys fit big on fans and I couldn't help but wonder if the heat zones actually fell on your groin and butt areas. Not a good look IMO.

[CrazyAnna]

The Seahawks really blew this thing to kingdom come.

I was a partial fan, but I'm looking at pictures now and it's hitting me....

THEY ARE BORING. SOMEHOW Nike's new super awesome Oregon team woohoo is BORING. Navy and grey? Seriously? They look so drab, but already dated. I'm revising my grade from a C+ to an F. This is pathetic.

I love it and I'd say 9/10 of us up here in the Queen City love it as well. And I'm willing to bet over the next few years a vast majority of nay-sayers will begin to like it more and more. Change is always difficult to accept in the beginning. But I also respect the negative feelings of the Seahawks new look on this board as well.

[BlueSky]

I'm sure most here know this but flywire isn't just for screwing up NFL collars. From a Nike shoe description:

===

A sturdy waffle-patterned sole and Flywire framework offer supreme stability for overpronators looking for a stable ride.

===

[andrewharrington]

IIRC, the other non-Swift team, Switzerland, made a surprise run to the semifinals in that tourney, as well.

They did indeed.

Maybe the Swedish were just a better hockey team to being with, which would mean all else was not equal. They probably would have scored a lot more goals if they were wearing the Swift.

Except all else wasn't equal and Sweden was just the best hockey team that tournament. I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread argue that the performance benefits in a uniform were so much that you would be able to easily tell a difference, especially one as big as winning an entire tournament. The biggest difference is in how comfortable the player is which goes together with how they perceive any difference in their head.

sounds like Sweden was the better team. im not saying the equipment makes you better than everyone else, but allows you to perform at your best.

So...you guys want to be able to have your cake and eat it too?

See andrew, who I usually find myself agreeing with, gave his "clone" example a few pages back. That if you have two athletes in peak physical condition then these newer types of uniforms will allow them the opportunity to improve performance. The problem is that this scenario does not exist. No two athletes, even if both are at the peak of physical fitness, are alike.

So really, the best we can do in comparing these sort of things is to simply compare performances of elite athletes against one and other, because the whole "clone" thing just isn't....real.

So you have an Olympic ice hockey tournament. Each team's comprised of the best their country has. It's the elite of the world. Did Sweden have the better team that year? Did Sweden have the best team that year? Yeah, they did. And that best team evidently wasn't hindered by using "old" uniform technology. Which is my point. Elite vs elite, the best we can really hope for since human cloning isn't a thing yet, and one side wasn't hindered by the old baggy, sweaty uniforms.

Factor in Switzerland's surprise run to the semis that year, and statistically speaking the performance of teams that wore the new Swift uniforms didn't fare any better then the teams that wore old style sweaters and socks.

Now as for the "it's all in their heads" argument, well I played hockey, and I'm looking to get back into it. I can't speak for everyone who's ever played the game, but personally, as a goalie, I prefer baggy sweaters. I find them less restricting then the newer tighter style of sweaters that are, surprisingly, designed to be less restricting.

Throwing away my retort that was obviously in jest, that's precisely the point I'm trying to make. All things are never equal, but just because the calculations are made using control situations as close to ideal or equal as possible doesn't mean that the science is not valid. I think comparing two athletes to each other is the fault of the analysis you're using, when the comparison should really be of the same individual with the garment and without the garment. I totally get what you guys are saying about how the 'ideal' situations don't exist in the real world, and you're correct. They don't, but science experiments are conducted in a way to best eliminate those varibles in order to create the most ideal situation to prove the benefits of whatever.

Loading up on carbs and water before a marathon may or may not help a runner perform better in the real world on any given day, depending on what kind of condition the runner's body is in, what type or how hard the runner's training regimen has been, the form of the runner, how good of a runner the individual actually is compared the other runners in the race, what kind of mood the runner is in the morning of the race, the weather, etc., but science has proven that, taking those variables away (otherwise known as all things being equal), loading up on carbs and water will help a human body run faster for a longer period of time. This is the same thing, except we're talking about predominantly external factors, like weight, aerodynamics and moisture evaporation as opposed to predominantly internal factors, such as fuel.

[Chawls]

[DeFrank's opinion]

I love it and I'd say 9/10 of us up here in the Queen City love it as well.

Cincinnati?

[oldschoolvikings]

[DeFrank's opinion]

I love it and I'd say 9/10 of us up here in the Queen City love it as well.

Cincinnati?

Beat me to it.

[ARTnSocal]

The Seahawks really blew this thing to kingdom come.

I was a partial fan, but I'm looking at pictures now and it's hitting me....

THEY ARE BORING. SOMEHOW Nike's new super awesome Oregon team woohoo is BORING. Navy and grey? Seriously? They look so drab, but already dated. I'm revising my grade from a C+ to an F. This is pathetic.

I love it and I'd say 9/10 of us up here in the Queen City love it as well. And I'm willing to bet over the next few years a vast majority of nay-sayers will begin to like it more and more. Change is always difficult to accept in the beginning. But I also respect the negative feelings of the Seahawks new look on this board as well.

After last night at KC I'll admit they're slowly starting to grow on me, but SLOWLY .....

I guarantee you one thing, if they continue to wear the navy monochrome at home the 'nay-sayers' will NEVER EVER come around.

They also need to get dominantly gray or white socks for the road games in which they wear the navy pants, the upper-navy socks are ALL WRONG for those navy pants.

[CrazyAnna]

[DeFrank's opinion]

I love it and I'd say 9/10 of us up here in the Queen City love it as well.

Cincinnati?

Watch it, mister. We had it first (regardless if we no longer use it)!

[mmejia]

[DeFrank's opinion]

I love it and I'd say 9/10 of us up here in the Queen City love it as well.

Cincinnati?

Beat me to it.

Technically, any city that is the largest in its state, but not the capitol, is referred to as the "queen city" of that state. Seattle fits that requirement. Isn't Seattle the "emerald city", though?

[CrazyAnna]

[DeFrank's opinion]

I love it and I'd say 9/10 of us up here in the Queen City love it as well.

Cincinnati?

Beat me to it.

Technically, any city that is the largest in its state, but not the capitol, is referred to as the "queen city" of that state. Seattle fits that requirement. Isn't Seattle the "emerald city", though?

Yes, we switched to the Emerald City in 1982 promote tourism (sellout!). For me, we will always be "The Future Queen City of the Pacific."