Breakdown of Seattle Seahawks New Uniforms

[njmeadowlanders]

It looks like the stripe was applied by having a truck drive over it.

[TruColor]

Hey ColorWerx,

Do you know if the logo itself changed outside the colors? On the actual helmet pictures, the two sides meet up and point down, while the stand-alone logo points up on the end.

...

I'm going to put together a Seahawks graphic retrospective, but here's a comparison of the 2011 primary mark vs. the 2012 version:

The other new marks are just recolors of the old set.

[WSU151]

Seahawks should have kept the green the same. The new green looks washed out. Hell, the whole logo looks washed out compared to the old one.

[DeFrank]

The new green also seems a little more on the "puke" side to me. Unfortunate.

[ltjets21]

Im surprised nike didn't jump all over the neon green, and made that more of a primary than an accent color. I think the grey over blue would be a nice look as well.

[Sterling84]

I can think of reasons to almost defend the intent of some of the aspects of these uniforms. Can't really get behind the execution necessarily.

1) The native wing shape repeating motif. I like motif. Every uniform needs repeated elements to be successful. Even if those elements are more commonly just stripes that match. But how come the repeated portion seems to be the negative space and not the positive? In those drawings the wing feathers come to that curving point; meaning the U-shape creates the feather in negative space. Making sense? On the blue pants...the green stripe is the feathers. The blue repeating elements (12 of them) aren't the feather, but the area (shadow?) separating the overlapping feathers. Odd. As opposed to the home green sleeve swoosh area....that is the one place where (to my eye) the motif is handled correctly-ish...in positive space.

1a) I think you have to be careful with motif v scale. Nobody can necessarily ask that helmet, sleeve, collar and pant stripes all be exactly equal width. But you try, in terms of proportion to match them so the repeating element holds it all together. Here we've got two large feathers on the shoulders. Much smaller ones on the pants. Smaller still one on the collar and numbers and teeny weeny ones on the helmet.

1b) I'm not willing to go to war over the aforementioned motif in the numerals and on the helmet. Rule of thumb for designers is that you pick your points of emphasis wisely so that they can be seen from a distance. But we've crossed a line here where the fashion counts nearly as much as the action. Meaning, as lame as it sounds to you or me, people might find it cool to see that "texture" on their apparel for personal use. Merchandising is a huge revenue stream and clearly matters to teams. And in fashion, the "can you see it from the press box" dogma goes out the window. Fashion is intimate. A co-worker you see across the office looks to have on a light blue shirt and dark tie. You see him later up close and the shirt is pin striped and the tie has an intricate paisley pattern that plays off the jacket and shirt at the same time. He looks sharp. It's completely reasonable to allow for (especially with female fashion-conscience fans ever on the rise, to try and add some texture or visual interest for the "hands-on" at home personal use aspects of the uniform. Caveat being that it doesn't actively detract from what you are trying to do big picture.

2) I like the notion of trying to address the shoulder/yoke area horizontally or as one unit. Who else has done this? Titans? Vintage Bears or Steelers? Cowboys Alt? To my memory it looks pretty good and is underused. Contrasting yokes are prominent in hockey. Why not in football? None of which is to say Nike was successful with that here. Far from it. When I look at this I see the Capitals uniforms with that strange horizontal armpit stripe to nowhere.

2a) I....yes.....I like the wordmark on the left shoulder pad. But only insofar as I hate it on the collar below the NFL shield. That is an abomination when any team does that and it leads to the necklace effect where everything else is pushed downward til the numbers are on the players gut. I hate THAT look so much I welcome any other ideas. Preferably...no wordmark or logo on chest! But if you insist? I don't mind the assymetry. I'm used to it somehow. Like a nametag for a soldier or delivery man. Like a captain's patch. Left chest=read the words written here. OK with me (if they must do it at all).

3) The grey needed to be more distinct from the white to work.

4) I don't care for the number font. But maybe it's just the size of it? Looks huge...fat. Wouldn't have minded stroking the TV numbers to match.

5) Call me crazy, but why during any point in the team's history, did they not lean on the inherent stripes IN THEIR LOGO more as cues for the stripes elsewhere? I know...sleevehawk. They had it there at one time. I'm glad he's gone, but why not just the stripes from sleeve hawk on the shoulders? Pants? It's a built-in unifier..thematic as hell. What's better than tying it to your logo? Who else is doing it either? The skins had two contrasting stripes...still might. But not with a thin piping between. I'm thinking......Detroit Pistons, but carried to the NFL. It would look awesome (IMO). A little vintage but with some tweaks it has worked for the Pistons. Still one of my favorite looks.

6) Lastly....just in an overall sense. I do not see this as the one NFL collegiate-looking team. The first glimpse I saw was a tiny thumbnail and it looked like a shot of the Chargers. Honestly. Navy heavy, with white. The green on my phone at that resolution indistinguishable from yellow. I dare say......it's a little too cute in some respects, and not nearly bold enough in others. First and foremost (for me) an NFL team has to be recognizeable the moment the highlight package comes on TV. I hated the mono-blue rainy day look but that blue alone did the talking. Hate to see it go for navy which is everywhere. I know...returning to blue/silver would have drawn Cowboy or Lion "associations" perhaps...but not if you kept the green it wouldn't have.

[nuordr]

Im surprised nike didn't jump all over the neon green, and made that more of a primary than an accent color. I think the grey over blue would be a nice look as well.

I really thought that NIKE would have tried to do a green jersey and after seeing the Gray alternate I wish they did.

[Chawls]

Very rough and quick, but here's a visual mockup of what I humbly think Seattle should have done (jersey and pants - I like the helmet as-is).

As the new set lacks a real unifying element, I feel that the set looks very disjointed. Basically, I think the best route would have been to take the great, unique pants stripe design and place it on the sleeves and collar to unify the look. Also, no wordmark to be found in a random place. I think this would have given Seattle that unique, bold, modern look they were going for without looking like the front cover of a children's Mix-n'-Match Astronaut Fun book.

And I post this not looking for "concept section comments" - just wanted to give a visual representation of what I was thinking.

I'd love to see your road version (and alt, if applicable).

[LogoFan]

The new green also seems a little more on the "puke" side to me. Unfortunate.

Ooookay...that's why it's been subconsciously bugging me. I think the brighter green may have worked better....it does look washed out.

[Brendan]

The Counting Crows were right, you don't know what you got till it's gone. That old set looks amazing compared to the new crap. I sent a bunch of tweets to Paul Allen, Pete Carroll and Seahawks players yesterday. Even though it probably won't make a difference, I encourage others to do the same! Let your be voices heard!

[UnclearInitial]

The first thing i thought of when I saw this was the UFL's first unis. A str5ipe across the chest, wordark on the left, use of green and silver, and the unique helmet stripe

That said, I have changed my opinion about the jersey about 500 times since they were unveiled, and I have come to the conclusion that they might actually be a little too tame (The pants striping doesn't flow with the jersey, and the "Wings" look awful. The pants should have been more similar to the jersey). While I love the seahawk on the helmet, the pattern drags it down. Love the new font, but the TV numbers should be outline too. I'm going to miss the old unis alot.

Edit: Just noticed the StubHub on the helmet bumper of the Tuskers helmet. If ads are going to be place on unis, that seems like the best place to put it.

[*logos*]

Just thought I would swing by and drop a link to this video where you can see the best shots of the new uniform around (trust me I've been looking).

Also, throughout the video if you have a patient eye and a quick mouse-finger you can see some concept designs they were working with throughout (green socks, etc.).

Lastly, how could I talk about what I think of these uniforms without filling a whole page? Suffice to say a hate them for so many reasons, none more acute than the fact that they are decidedly worse than what we had before. The green is slightly not as good as Reebok's version; the Navy blue is a really really disappointing shade?way too light and just generally boring?if they wanted to go all navy they should've gone with the dark shade they wore on the sleeves previously; the grey is not silver; the weird blotches of color on the shoulders do not resemble anything intelligible, nor does the "feather" pattern it was modeled after?I like the idea of PNW Native American feather design, but Nike's representation looks like a corporate bastard and lacks the right context (who would guess those are feathers if you weren't told so?). They could've done so much better with that idea; the word-mark being off-center is just begging for attention?not classy. If you must, at least write "Seattle" in the other field; the helmet did not need a bunch of frills as we already had one of the best designs?it certainly did not need a repeat of the lame feather shape in the back which just messes with the whole thing; I miss the old blue color, especially in comparison to their boring "college navy"; for all their meddling in areas they didn't need to, we don't have any interesting green stripes on the socks, or other subtle accents that would've made a big difference; all the numbers and logos are screen-printed, which is just about the most tacky thing I can imagine.

I could go on, but that's a start.

That said, they're very, very slowly starting to grow on me. Overall the helmets are good (If there's a Seahawks logo on it, you can't really go wrong). I'd like to see them under different lights because I thought the tones were just awful at the unveiling.

If it's any consolation, I thought that everyone's Nike jersey looked like crap league-wide. Reebok was a much better aesthetic fit. Nike has some adjustments to make if you ask me...

Go Seahawks.

[*logos*]

Lastly I'd like to say that the unis look oh so much better on the computer screens at Nike than they do in real life. If they could've matched their concept to the reality, it would've made a big difference. Really just the fabric was quite different than they anticipated, I think.

[colinturner95]

I'm just glad the lighter blue was eliminated.

[infrared41]

I'd like to say that the unis look oh so much better on the computer screens at Nike than they do in real life. If they could've matched their concept to the reality, it would've made a big difference.

Exactly. (Not bad input for a rookie. Well done. ) There have been numerous times where I've seen a new uniform design that's perfectly positioned on a mannequin in a perfectly lit studio etc. and thought "that looks pretty good." Then the team actually wears the uniform in a game and it looks just awful. Boise State's white "pro combat" uniform from last season is a perfect example of that. Georgia's too.

[oldschoolvikings]

I'd like to say that the unis look oh so much better on the computer screens at Nike than they do in real life. If they could've matched their concept to the reality, it would've made a big difference.

Exactly. (Not bad input for a rookie. Well done. ) There have been numerous times where I've seen a new uniform design that's perfectly positioned on a mannequin in a perfectly lit studio etc. and thought "that looks pretty good." Then the team actually wears the uniform in a game and it looks just awful. Boise State's white "pro combat" uniform from last season is a perfect example of that. Georgia's too.

+1

Seriously, 'Red... like every damn time a new college uniform is announced...

[Brian in Boston]

I still say that if you slap a Navy Blue facemask on the helmets, the current Seahawks wordmark just below the collar on the jerseys (in White on the home, Navy Blue on the away), and render the numbers in a custom font based upon the wordmark, either of these uniform set concepts Buc created would be light years better than the abominations that Nike unveiled on behalf of the Seahawks yesterday.

[nuordr]

I would rather have the current blue helmet than those hideous silver helmets. The Seahawks are better off with what they have now than this decent look.

[*logos*]

I'd like to say that the unis look oh so much better on the computer screens at Nike than they do in real life. If they could've matched their concept to the reality, it would've made a big difference.

Exactly. (Not bad input for a rookie. Well done. )

Gee shanksh

[Fresno St. Alum]

I don't HATE them. But that's probably because I was expecting so much worse.

You mean like the Birmingham Barracudas type of bad?