NIKE NFL Uniforms

[SmoothieX]

1) I disagree. I think Woodson's look is bad and goes against the established aesthetics of pro football. Rodgers' look is much cleaner and better.

It can work.

I realize that teams have done it before. However, I don't think it looks good or professional. The move for teams eliminating sock stripes, combined with the NFL tacitly allowing players to wear solid color socks, has degraded the aesthetics of football. Look at the rest of a football uniform - supposedly advanced fabrics, color coordinated, striping and logos, and now some teams going with unique textures and finishes on helmets - obviously football uniforms are custom designed and very expensive. Then when you get to the socks, it's like they tossed out creativity and said, "Meh, I guess I could just wear some soccer socks or something."

[Sport]

1) I disagree. I think Woodson's look is bad and goes against the established aesthetics of pro football. Rodgers' look is much cleaner and better.

It can work.

I realize that teams have done it before. However, I don't think it looks good or professional. The move for teams eliminating sock stripes, combined with the NFL tacitly allowing players to wear solid color socks, has degraded the aesthetics of football. Look at the rest of a football uniform - supposedly advanced fabrics, color coordinated, striping and logos, and now some teams going with unique textures and finishes on helmets - obviously football uniforms are custom designed and very expensive. Then when you get to the socks, it's like they tossed out creativity and said, "Meh, I guess I could just wear some soccer socks or something."

Dynamite drop-in, Monty.

[TheOldRoman]

Thanks for clarifying that you have nothing to contribute to the conversation and can't think of anything intelligent to say.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, as much as I agree with his notion that solid socks somehow show a lack of originality, that wasn't called for. Criticize the content of a post, not the poster.

[LEWJ]

Now I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but i have always noticed a resemblance between the Rams number font and Nike's font used for North Carolina. Very similar.

Now what i was curious about was whether or not Nike has continued using the Rams font or if they had used their own version.

I was watching the Rams and Cowboys preseason game last night and thought some of the Rams numerals looked different.

Can anyone confirm or am i crazy?

[eRay]

Sock creativity can be a slippery slope.

[TheOldRoman]

Now I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but i have always noticed a resemblance between the Rams number font and Nike's font used for North Carolina. Very similar.

Now what i was curious about was whether or not Nike has continued using the Rams font or if they had used their own version.

I was watching the Rams and Cowboys preseason game last night and thought some of the Rams numerals looked different.

Can anyone confirm or am i crazy?

I mentioned it before, but it looks to me like Nike has shrunken the sleeve/shoulder numbers for each team. The Bears' shoulder numbers look tiny, but that could be just because I am used to them being on the sleeves. The Redskins sleeve numbers are notably different. The last several years, position players on the Redskins had a thick, wide block on the sleeves while lineman had a thinner, slightly narrower wide block. This year, the Redskins' sleeve numbers look like shrunken down versions of the front font, as Reebok did with all their replica jerseys.

[Sport]

I'm kinda bummed the Bears didn't take the opportunity to finally match their TV numbers to their front and back numbers. Those short squat digits were a necessary quirk on the sleeves, but now that they've been moved up to the shoulder and they have more space I think it's time to update. I mean, their replica jerseys have had matching fonts on the sleeves forever. Let's get the team there too.

[TheOldRoman]

I'm kinda bummed the Bears didn't take the opportunity to finally match their TV numbers to their front and back numbers. Those short squat digits were a necessary quirk on the sleeves, but now that they've been moved up to the shoulder and they have more space I think it's time to update. I mean, their replica jerseys have had matching fonts on the sleeves forever. Let's get the team there too.

I disagree. First off, the replicas have only had those numbers for the last ten years, and that was because Reebok cheaply used each teams' front number font in every area, although most teams had a different sleeve/shoulder font. Many (like the Bears) also have a different font on the back, but Reebok used the front numbers on the back and sleeves.

Teams generally use a wider, more squat font for the sleeves/shoulders. If you put the primary font in that spot, it will be so narrow that it will pretty much dissapear. It needs to be a bolder font to stand out. If anything, the Bears could stand to widen the font on the shoulder numbers.

[guest23]

I'm kinda bummed the Bears didn't take the opportunity to finally match their TV numbers to their front and back numbers. Those short squat digits were a necessary quirk on the sleeves, but now that they've been moved up to the shoulder and they have more space I think it's time to update. I mean, their replica jerseys have had matching fonts on the sleeves forever. Let's get the team there too.

I once thought the same thing but that's the beauty of some of the older uniforms is that they are not totally uniform from head to toe...the designs evolved over time before the days of focus groups, branding committees, and design teams...all sports need teams like the bears and giants with their inconsistent quirks otherwise you get a league that is entirely uniform looking where all stripe patterns are the same from head to toe, away jerseys always are inverse of home, helmets always have contrasting facemasks etc.

[andrewharrington]

Am I the only one who doesn't like the mandated white socks? I don't get why players need to have white socks over their team socks. Plus, everybody wears them at different lengths, which just looks ridiculous.

Charles Woodson's all green socks look better than other Packers who wear the white portion.

Just have players wear one sock.

Not at all. I prefer the full colored sock. I don't mind the white lower portion of the socks, but as long as people are going to wear the white portion at whatever height they please, give the full color for consistency's sake.

1) I disagree. I think Woodson's look is bad and goes against the established aesthetics of pro football. Rodgers' look is much cleaner and better.

It can work.

I realize that teams have done it before. However, I don't think it looks good or professional. The move for teams eliminating sock stripes, combined with the NFL tacitly allowing players to wear solid color socks, has degraded the aesthetics of football. Look at the rest of a football uniform - supposedly advanced fabrics, color coordinated, striping and logos, and now some teams going with unique textures and finishes on helmets - obviously football uniforms are custom designed and very expensive. Then when you get to the socks, it's like they tossed out creativity and said, "Meh, I guess I could just wear some soccer socks or something."

I udnerstand most of history has had players wearing white socks over the lower portion of their stirrups/socks, but I don't see why a full colored sock is uncreative by nature? I'm failing to understand, then, how exactly mandating that the lower portion of everyone's sock/leg be white is creative, custom designed and/or very expensive looking. To me, your quote could just as easily say this:

Look at the rest of a football uniform - supposedly advanced fabrics, color coordinated, striping and logos, and now some teams going with unique textures and finishes on helmets - obviously football uniforms are custom designed and very expensive. Then when you get to the socks, it's like they tossed out creativity and said, "Meh, I guess I could just put some white crew socks on over these or something.

I'm kinda bummed the Bears didn't take the opportunity to finally match their TV numbers to their front and back numbers. Those short squat digits were a necessary quirk on the sleeves, but now that they've been moved up to the shoulder and they have more space I think it's time to update. I mean, their replica jerseys have had matching fonts on the sleeves forever. Let's get the team there too.

I disagree. First off, the replicas have only had those numbers for the last ten years, and that was because Reebok cheaply used each teams' front number font in every area, although most teams had a different sleeve/shoulder font. Many (like the Bears) also have a different font on the back, but Reebok used the front numbers on the back and sleeves.

Teams generally use a wider, more squat font for the sleeves/shoulders. If you put the primary font in that spot, it will be so narrow that it will pretty much dissapear. It needs to be a bolder font to stand out. If anything, the Bears could stand to widen the font on the shoulder numbers.

Using the front numbers on every placement of the replica jersey is most likely not an issue of cost. You still have to screen print all three placements no matter what the numbers look like. The new Nike replicas I've seen use the same numerals for the front and back, which is, as you pointed out, incorrect. Some teams use the same artwork for front and rear numerals, but none use the same size numerals for front and back.

[shaydre1019]

There should be a rule that the pants must cover the kneecap. Enough of the "bicycle shorts" look.

You'll get your wish next season. Knee and thigh pads will be mandatory and it'll be tough to wear a knee pad without covering your knee.

But there's no guarantee the pants will cover the knee pad. Players might pull their socks over the pad.

Every player in college wears knee pads and they hardly cover their knees. Definitely don't cover the knee cap. The biker shorts are more than likely here to stay.

[DeFrank]

It's too bad but the Redskins gold pants being a mess combined with the flywire on the white jersey have made their usually drab and boring red over white look far superior to the last year good looking white over gold. Not to mention the absolute beauty of Kirk Cousins sleeves.

[4_tattoos]

^^^^^^

Skins definetly should have pulled a Chiefs/Bears style number & stripe relocation.

SN: I hate that the Redskins wear black shoes & accessories (gloves, wristbands, etc.) Looked much better when their shoes/accesories were white with burgundy accents.

[Chawls]

Am I the only one who doesn't like the mandated white socks? I don't get why players need to have white socks over their team socks. Plus, everybody wears them at different lengths, which just looks ridiculous.

Charles Woodson's all green socks look better than other Packers who wear the white portion.

Just have players wear one sock.

Not at all. I prefer the full colored sock. I don't mind the white lower portion of the socks, but as long as people are going to wear the white portion at whatever height they please, give the full color for consistency's sake.

I'm also an advocate for full-colored socks. Looks good in baseball. Looks good in football.

[BBTV]

One-color socks would look horrible on teams that already have a leotard effect happening.

I don't mind one color when done right, but generally I think the white bottom is cleaner, but that might just be because I'm used to it.

I do think that for teams that wear white shoes, having the white bottom may at one time have given a uniform look to the team because it wouldn't matter if the player had high tops, low tops, or any other kind of tops - the white would be at the same level. Obviously now that doesn't apply, with teams not wearing white shoes, and even the white shoes now have so much other colors in them.

If a team wants to wear one color sock, the team should wear white shoes if their sock is dark. That Packers example would look better if the shoes weren't close to the sock color.

[TheOldRoman]

I udnerstand most of history has had players wearing white socks over the lower portion of their stirrups/socks, but I don't see why a full colored sock is uncreative by nature? I'm failing to understand, then, how exactly mandating that the lower portion of everyone's sock/leg be white is creative, custom designed and/or very expensive looking. To me, your quote could just as easily say this:

Look at the rest of a football uniform - supposedly advanced fabrics, color coordinated, striping and logos, and now some teams going with unique textures and finishes on helmets - obviously football uniforms are custom designed and very expensive. Then when you get to the socks, it's like they tossed out creativity and said, "Meh, I guess I could just put some white crew socks on over these or something.

But the difference is, socks with white on the bottom are part of the established aesthetics of pro football over the past 60 years. They are instantly recognizable as *football* socks. So from that perspective, it looks lazy to wear soccer socks or baseball socks instead. I am too young to have seen stirrups widespread in baseball, but if I grew up in an era where every player wore their pants legs high and showed stirrups, I would probably dislike soccer-style socks in baseball, as well. And stirrups (as were worn before the '70s) were much closer to soccer socks than football socks are.

As far as I know, the bastardization of the socks started about 15 years ago when some players wore tights with white crew socks pulled up to mimic football socks. I was not yet a uni-nerd, but I only noticed because a lineman on the Chiefs (Neil Smith?) wore tights, and obviously his teammates had stripes on their socks. So wearing tights devolved into wearing solid colored socks, which further devolved into wearing multiple pairs of colored socks, wearing multiple pairs of striped socks to look like a candycane, wearing solid white socks, and a variety of other crap. I see that as less of a function of uniform design and more of a laziness in letting the players wear whatever they feel.

Using the front numbers on every placement of the replica jersey is most likely not an issue of cost. You still have to screen print all three placements no matter what the numbers look like. The new Nike replicas I've seen use the same numerals for the front and back, which is, as you pointed out, incorrect. Some teams use the same artwork for front and rear numerals, but none use the same size numerals for front and back.

Right, Reebok still had to make smaller templates for the sleeve numbers, but I guess they chose the front font out of laziness. I don't mind the teams not having different back fonts, as the differences from the front are more minor (you can only really tell the Bears' difference on the 2 and 4), but there is a big difference visually between front fonts and sleeve/shoulder fonts. Especially with the Bears.

[andrewharrington]

I udnerstand most of history has had players wearing white socks over the lower portion of their stirrups/socks, but I don't see why a full colored sock is uncreative by nature? I'm failing to understand, then, how exactly mandating that the lower portion of everyone's sock/leg be white is creative, custom designed and/or very expensive looking. To me, your quote could just as easily say this:

Look at the rest of a football uniform - supposedly advanced fabrics, color coordinated, striping and logos, and now some teams going with unique textures and finishes on helmets - obviously football uniforms are custom designed and very expensive. Then when you get to the socks, it's like they tossed out creativity and said, "Meh, I guess I could just put some white crew socks on over these or something.

But the difference is, socks with white on the bottom are part of the established aesthetics of pro football over the past 60 years. They are instantly recognizable as *football* socks. So from that perspective, it looks lazy to wear soccer socks or baseball socks instead. I am too young to have seen stirrups widespread in baseball, but if I grew up in an era where every player wore their pants legs high and showed stirrups, I would probably dislike soccer-style socks in baseball, as well. And stirrups (as were worn before the '70s) were much closer to soccer socks than football socks are.

As far as I know, the bastardization of the socks started about 15 years ago when some players wore tights with white crew socks pulled up to mimic football socks. I was not yet a uni-nerd, but I only noticed because a lineman on the Chiefs (Neil Smith?) wore tights, and obviously his teammates had stripes on their socks. So wearing tights devolved into wearing solid colored socks, which further devolved into wearing multiple pairs of colored socks, wearing multiple pairs of striped socks to look like a candycane, wearing solid white socks, and a variety of other crap. I see that as less of a function of uniform design and more of a laziness in letting the players wear whatever they feel.

Using the front numbers on every placement of the replica jersey is most likely not an issue of cost. You still have to screen print all three placements no matter what the numbers look like. The new Nike replicas I've seen use the same numerals for the front and back, which is, as you pointed out, incorrect. Some teams use the same artwork for front and rear numerals, but none use the same size numerals for front and back.

Right, Reebok still had to make smaller templates for the sleeve numbers, but I guess they chose the front font out of laziness. I don't mind the teams not having different back fonts, as the differences from the front are more minor (you can only really tell the Bears' difference on the 2 and 4), but there is a big difference visually between front fonts and sleeve/shoulder fonts. Especially with the Bears.

Fair enough. White on the bottom is definitely history's most prevalent look for the past half century plus, but it didn't begin like that, which is why I don't associate the white-bottom socks with the established aesthetics of pro football. It's certainly one of the established aesthetics of pro football, but there's more than just the past 60 years to think about, in my opinion. I put more significance in the origins than your average fan, though, so take that how you will.:

Sure, players wore white socks over their regular hosiery in the earliest days, but it wasn't a given. Moreover, many of the early whites were quite miniscule compared to the mid-calf that's required (or should I say recommended) today. A white-bottom sock creates an unnecessary visual interruption in the uniform for me, but that is not a deal breaker, mind you. I don't dislike it, but if given the choice, the full color is more desirable to me.

---

As for the numerals on replica jerseys, let me put it this way: Lazy implies that you know how to do it right, but you just do it the easiest way regardless. Call it what you will, but keep in mind that just because you create jersey artwork for a living doesn't necessarily mean that you're into uniforms and details the same way people on this board are.

[hugevolsfan]

One-color socks would look horrible on teams that already have a leotard effect happening.

I don't mind one color when done right, but generally I think the white bottom is cleaner, but that might just be because I'm used to it.

I do think that for teams that wear white shoes, having the white bottom may at one time have given a uniform look to the team because it wouldn't matter if the player had high tops, low tops, or any other kind of tops - the white would be at the same level. Obviously now that doesn't apply, with teams not wearing white shoes, and even the white shoes now have so much other colors in them.

If a team wants to wear one color sock, the team should wear white shoes if their sock is dark. That Packers example would look better if the shoes weren't close to the sock color.

+1

[Moseph]

It's too bad but the Redskins gold pants being a mess combined with the flywire on the white jersey have made their usually drab and boring red over white look far superior to the last year good looking white over gold. Not to mention the absolute beauty of Kirk Cousins sleeves.

The only problem with the burgundy jerseys is the sweat zones that give it a two-tone. Nike pretty much sucks if you ask me.