Teams that never had a bad look

[The_Admiral]

detroit lions, ohio state football and defiantly the red wings

What is it that the Red Wings are defying?

[rxmc89]

Packers, Reds, Celtics

I disagree with the Reds due to the overabundance of black on their uniforms from 1999 to 2006.

I always like the incorporation of black myself.

Sure, they didn't make sense for the team name, but aesthetically can you really say that's a "bad" uniform?

[TheOldRoman]

The Steelers have always looked awful. The lopsided helmets. Mismatching stripes. If not for winning a few games in the 1970s, those atrocious uniforms would be long gone.

What now? The striping pattern is exactly the same on the home and road jerseys.

[John in KY]

Packers, Reds, Celtics

I disagree with the Reds due to the overabundance of black on their uniforms from 1999 to 2006.

I always like the incorporation of black myself.

Sure, they didn't make sense for the team name, but aesthetically can you really say that's a "bad" uniform?

Okay those could be considered BFBS - but I never had a real problem with that because for a team named the Reds they have a history with wearing a lot of navy trim. From 1939 to 1955 the C-REDS logo had a navy background (and they wore navy caps - with red bills through 1946, then just navy until 1955), dropped the navy when they became the Commie-scare "Redlegs" for the rest of the 50s, and brought the navy back for 6 more years from 1961-1966. So that is 23 out of 28 seasons they at least used a navy background for their logo and had navy trim on the "Cincinnati".

Just to show how close the 1939-1955 cap and logo were to the 2000s version, here is the 1939 version:

Granted they only wore the navy sleeves and half navy/half red stirrups from 1939-1946; while the uniform didn't change they switched to red sleeves and solid red stirrups for 1947-1955.

[Lights Out]

The Steelers have always looked awful. The lopsided helmets. Mismatching stripes. If not for winning a few games in the 1970s, those atrocious uniforms would be long gone.

What now? The striping pattern is exactly the same on the home and road jerseys.

Probably either referring to either the helmet stripe or the fact that their obnoxious, ugly sleeve stripes are too huge to entirely fit on most uniform cuts, so they look different depending on the player.

And yes, I agree that the Steelers' uniforms are hideous, cheap-looking clownsuits. The sleeve stripes and one-sided helmet design alone are enough to bring them down to bottom 5 uniform status without even considering the ugly number font and mismatched striping patterns.

[IceCap]

The Steelers have always looked awful. The lopsided helmets. Mismatching stripes. If not for winning a few games in the 1970s, those atrocious uniforms would be long gone.

What now? The striping pattern is exactly the same on the home and road jerseys.

Probably either referring to either the helmet stripe or the fact that their obnoxious, ugly sleeve stripes are too huge to entirely fit on most uniform cuts, so they look different depending on the player.

And yes, I agree that the Steelers' uniforms are hideous, cheap-looking clownsuits. The sleeve stripes and one-sided helmet design alone are enough to bring them down to bottom 5 uniform status without even considering the ugly number font and mismatched striping patterns.

You're doing it wrong again

Anyway I don't mind the Steelers' uniforms, for the most part. I rather like the one-sided logo thing myself. It's unique to the team, and unlike when Boise St. tried it, there's an actual reason for it in Pittsburgh.

I'm in agreement when it comes to the sleeve stripes though. They're just not working on the tighter cuts (regardless of how I wish longer sleeves would come back, they're probably not). I wouldn't want to see them drop the stripes completely, but they could stand to simplify them. Kind of like what the Packers did to their sleeve stripes years ago.

[CSSdesigns]

Packers, Reds, Celtics

I disagree with the Reds due to the overabundance of black on their uniforms from 1999 to 2006.

I always like the incorporation of black myself.

Sure, they didn't make sense for the team name, but aesthetically can you really say that's a "bad" uniform?

It's not. The problem is the fact that black should be used sparingly for the Reds, not like it was during those years. It just doesn't work, but I do miss the Black hat as an alternate.

[Sport]

The Steelers have always looked awful. The lopsided helmets. Mismatching stripes. If not for winning a few games in the 1970s, those atrocious uniforms would be long gone.

What now? The striping pattern is exactly the same on the home and road jerseys.

Probably either referring to either the helmet stripe or the fact that their obnoxious, ugly sleeve stripes are too huge to entirely fit on most uniform cuts, so they look different depending on the player.

And yes, I agree that the Steelers' uniforms are hideous, cheap-looking clownsuits. The sleeve stripes and one-sided helmet design alone are enough to bring them down to bottom 5 uniform status without even considering the ugly number font and mismatched striping patterns.

I think the Steelers have horrible uniforms myself, but when you refer to every uniform you don't like as a "clownsuit", the term loses all meaning.

[OnWis97]

I wish the Steelers would go back to block numbers; their look would be OK. But I agree with Cujo that the 70s dynasty is why they still use this overall look (kind of makes me wish the Lions had been the '70s dynasty). Otherwise, their stripes would be smaller and other things would have changed.

And I know it'll never happen, but I'd love them to slap their logo on the other side of the helmet.

[Davey]

Montreal Canadiens

Toronto Maple Leafs

Los Angeles Lakers

Boston Celtics

[IceCap]

Toronto Maple Leafs

I was going to mention the Leafs until I remembered their first Edge set. The lack of hem stripes and the overdone number outlines really do push that set into "bad" territory, in my opinion.

[larrypep]

Okay those could be considered BFBS - but I never had a real problem with that because for a team named the Reds they have a history with wearing a lot of navy trim. From 1939 to 1955 the C-REDS logo had a navy background (and they wore navy caps - with red bills through 1946, then just navy until 1955), dropped the navy when they became the Commie-scare "Redlegs" for the rest of the 50s, and brought the navy back for 6 more years from 1961-1966. So that is 23 out of 28 seasons they at least used a navy background for their logo and had navy trim on the "Cincinnati".

Just to show how close the 1939-1955 cap and logo were to the 2000s version, here is the 1939 version:

Granted they only wore the navy sleeves and half navy/half red stirrups from 1939-1946; while the uniform didn't change they switched to red sleeves and solid red stirrups for 1947-1955.

I really dig the Navy era Reds uniforms, especially the caps, both the red bills and the all blue caps.

[The_Admiral]

Toronto Maple Leafs

I was going to mention the Leafs until I remembered their first Edge set. The lack of hem stripes and the overdone number outlines really do push that set into "bad" territory, in my opinion.

The Ballard uniforms were pretty bad, too.

[IceCap]

They were definitely bad for the Leafs, but I'm not sure if I'd call them bad in general. The design itself was pretty clean.

[The_Admiral]

If they were bad for the Leafs, then they were bad. No one else was wearing them.

(Though there was the time John Ferguson brought the Rags' similarly bad jerseys off to Winnipeg, where they ended up looking pretty good.)

[IceCap]

If they were bad for the Leafs, then they were bad. No one else was wearing them.

That's a fair enough point.

On the topic of bad Leafs uniforms, does anyone else remember the rumour that floated around here years ago about a proposed mid/late 90s re-brand the Leafs considered? It would have involved a second shade of blue (probably powder or sky blue) and would have rendered the traditional "TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS" script like graffiti. I think CWx mentioned it once. Good G-d that would have been awful, but I think I can say with absolute certainty that had it happened at least one person here would say they liked it.

(Though there was the time John Ferguson brought the Rags' similarly bad jerseys off to Winnipeg, where they ended up looking pretty good.)

Another example of this happened in Detroit, when the Red Wings decided to get cute with their numbers for a year. It didn't look bad, it just wasn't a very good fit for the team.

[Lights Out]

Well, the powder blue would have looked nice, considering it would have preceded the Titans, Grizzies and Jazz ushering in the boring double-blue fad in the 2000's.

BTW, I still maintain that serif numbers would look awesome for the Wings IF the font were bolder and closer to the Bookman font from their wordmark. Traditional serif fonts are underused in sports, which is a shame, because UVA and UCLA showed how good they could look in the '90s.

[BrySmalls]

Packers, Reds, Celtics

I disagree with the Reds due to the overabundance of black on their uniforms from 1999 to 2006.

I always like the incorporation of black myself.

Sure, they didn't make sense for the team name, but aesthetically can you really say that's a "bad" uniform?

It's not. The problem is the fact that black should be used sparingly for the Reds, not like it was during those years. It just doesn't work, but I do miss the Black hat as an alternate.

I stand by my initial post regarding the Reds.

[The_Admiral]

The Wings' serif numbers were good in theory, bad in practice. If you're unifying the script and the numbers, then you probably have to do the NOBs, too, and obviously Bookman Swash doesn't lend itself to that. Best off just using block for names and numbers, then.

[Lights Out]

BTW, I still maintain that the Leafs have only had one truly great look:

I know Ice_Cap isn't a fan of the custom fonts, but IMHO, the fonts are what elevates this sweater from looking like a cheap replica to an actual professional uniform.