2013 NFL uniform/logo changes

[guest23]

Laughing at everybody already making up their minds. Imagine describing Seattle's uniforms. It would sound just as crazy. Mock ups of the designs would be way off. I personally like Seattle's duds, so I'm excited to see what we have whipped up.

I liked the description of Seattle's uniforms because it sounded as though it was going to blend in a lot of Seattle history/tradition. What we got, ultimately, did not (which is part of why I don't like their uniforms that much).

The military theme stuff is, to me, really obnoxious in sports. You play a sport. You aren't a soldier. Treating you as such is distasteful in my eyes.

I simply chalk it up to lazy and pandering based marketing...they are trying to appeal/attach themselves to a demographic in order to make money much like the latino events in various leagues which always feels very unauthentic...even the charitable marketing events (nfl pink) are marketing and bottom line driven. Very few commercial enterprises are really committed to these groups/causes if they can't trace it to some sort of financial benefit.

[Gr3g3]

Jesus christ. There's a patch on the jersey and names on the front (disputed by somebody else). They're not running out there in full camo.

[debo0775]

Jesus christ. There's a patch on the jersey and names on the front (disputed by somebody else). They're not running out there in full camo.

I didn't say they were. By their admission, they're going for a "military feel." That's their prerogative, but I don't have to (and I don't) like it.

[TSHARE18]

Jesus christ. There's a patch on the jersey and names on the front (disputed by somebody else). They're not running out there in full camo.

Thanks for saving some time. Are the Nets all decked out in military gear too? They have a shield too! Now if they trot out in camo or American flags then yea it is a full on military themed uniform.

[The Fixer]

Laughing at everybody already making up their minds. Imagine describing Seattle's uniforms. It would sound just as crazy. Mock ups of the designs would be way off. I personally like Seattle's duds, so I'm excited to see what we have whipped up.

I liked the description of Seattle's uniforms because it sounded as though it was going to blend in a lot of Seattle history/tradition. What we got, ultimately, did not (which is part of why I don't like their uniforms that much).

The military theme stuff is, to me, really obnoxious in sports. You play a sport. You aren't a soldier. Treating you as such is distasteful in my eyes.

this

[debo0775]

Jesus christ. There's a patch on the jersey and names on the front (disputed by somebody else). They're not running out there in full camo.

Thanks for saving some time. Are the Nets all decked out in military gear too? They have a shield too! Now if they trot out in camo or American flags then yea it is a full on military themed uniform.

The shield has nothing to do with my opinion, really (although I think it looks a bit clunky). It's more of the direction Khan wants them to go what with his comments about wanting to have a military feel to the uniform set. It's distasteful in my eyes to draw inspiration from the military for a team that doesn't have any logical ties to the military (and even then, it's questionable whether it'd be distasteful or not - that has more to do with execution than theme I think).

[TSHARE18]

Jesus christ. There's a patch on the jersey and names on the front (disputed by somebody else). They're not running out there in full camo.

Thanks for saving some time. Are the Nets all decked out in military gear too? They have a shield too! Now if they trot out in camo or American flags then yea it is a full on military themed uniform.

The shield has nothing to do with my opinion, really (although I think it looks a bit clunky). It's more of the direction Khan wants them to go what with his comments about wanting to have a military feel to the uniform set. It's distasteful in my eyes to draw inspiration from the military for a team that doesn't have any logical ties to the military (and even then, it's questionable whether it'd be distasteful or not - that has more to do with execution than theme I think).

No ties? There is a Navy base in Jacksonville. The only thing military about the uniforms from what has been described is the shield. I really think its getting blown way out of proportion. This isn't South Carolina or Maryland uniforms we are talking about here.

[LourdOfTheFly]

I repeat: if you take the "war" out of football, you have to take out things like "fight" and "struggle" as well. Lest you be accused of war profiteering and capitalizing off patriotic sheep.

Where does the line exist? I'd say direct imitation of current US military iconography by anyone besides the service academies would be distasteful.

[Bathysphere]

The fact that the team is only saying that the theme will be militaryish and not that they will be running out in jerseys that are covered with a black, gold, and teal American flag design that has sublimated camo in the stripes as well as using the space freed up with the last name now on the front by now making it read "We motherf#@%ing LOVE the military!!1!" where the NOB used to be doesn't turn me off to the design. It may feel a little cheesy after awhile (Read: Extremely cheesy the whole time), but the design will just be a design. That's how I'll judge it.

Also, when people mentioned that the socks should match the helmet, did anyone else envision (*gulp*) gradient socks?

*shudders with magnitude that registered on the Richter scale*

[Formo]

Meh. I won't hate the Jags new threads, just like I don't hate Seattle's.

I don't like Seattle's uniforms.. but I find the newer/modern looks to them to be very interesting (just like Oregon's 9,385,223 different combos). Just as long as they are MY teams doing the new/modern/futuristic looks, I'm 100% ok with them.

[debo0775]

I repeat: if you take the "war" out of football, you have to take out things like "fight" and "struggle" as well. Lest you be accused of war profiteering and capitalizing off patriotic sheep.

Where does the line exist? I'd say direct imitation of current US military iconography by anyone besides the service academies would be distasteful.

"Fight" and "struggle" aren't words that are exclusively associated with the military (nor have they ever been).

To me, what makes military styling distasteful is that it's playing off of that look to make money. It's not an honor ploy - it's a marketing ploy. Any association (implied or otherwise) of athletes with warriors is something I'm not personally a fan of. That's my stance.

As for the other post about their being "ties" - there are military bases in/around many major cities in the US. That doesn't mean that a franchise that just happens to be near one has ties to the military. For perspective, that would be like the Bears deciding to honor Chicago's slaughterhouse history with butcher-inspired uniforms. It's ridiculous to think that there's a tie between that institution and the franchise.

At any rate, I'll leave it at that as I've gone far enough OT with that view.

[LourdOfTheFly]

I repeat: if you take the "war" out of football, you have to take out things like "fight" and "struggle" as well. Lest you be accused of war profiteering and capitalizing off patriotic sheep.

Where does the line exist? I'd say direct imitation of current US military iconography by anyone besides the service academies would be distasteful.

"Fight" and "struggle" aren't words that are exclusively associated with the military (nor have they ever been).

To me, what makes military styling distasteful is that it's playing off of that look to make money. It's not an honor ploy - it's a marketing ploy. Any association (implied or otherwise) of athletes with warriors is something I'm not personally a fan of. That's my stance.

What is your stance on the Patriots, Vikings, Warriors, Blue Jackets, etc?

[Pizzaman7294]

I repeat: if you take the "war" out of football, you have to take out things like "fight" and "struggle" as well. Lest you be accused of war profiteering and capitalizing off patriotic sheep.

Where does the line exist? I'd say direct imitation of current US military iconography by anyone besides the service academies would be distasteful.

"Fight" and "struggle" aren't words that are exclusively associated with the military (nor have they ever been).

To me, what makes military styling distasteful is that it's playing off of that look to make money. It's not an honor ploy - it's a marketing ploy. Any association (implied or otherwise) of athletes with warriors is something I'm not personally a fan of. That's my stance.

As for the other post about their being "ties" - there are military bases in/around many major cities in the US. That doesn't mean that a franchise that just happens to be near one has ties to the military. For perspective, that would be like the Bears deciding to honor Chicago's slaughterhouse history with butcher-inspired uniforms. It's ridiculous to think that there's a tie between that institution and the franchise.

At any rate, I'll leave it at that as I've gone far enough OT with that view.

*Chicago Bulls

[debo0775]

I repeat: if you take the "war" out of football, you have to take out things like "fight" and "struggle" as well. Lest you be accused of war profiteering and capitalizing off patriotic sheep.

Where does the line exist? I'd say direct imitation of current US military iconography by anyone besides the service academies would be distasteful.

"Fight" and "struggle" aren't words that are exclusively associated with the military (nor have they ever been).

To me, what makes military styling distasteful is that it's playing off of that look to make money. It's not an honor ploy - it's a marketing ploy. Any association (implied or otherwise) of athletes with warriors is something I'm not personally a fan of. That's my stance.

What is your stance on the Patriots, Vikings, Warriors, Blue Jackets, etc?

Pats, Vikings, and Blue Jackets are names reflective of local history. I don't have an issue with their naming so long as they don't go out of their way to make the players sound like they're soldiers. The Warriors I'm not sure of history-wise, but it's one that falls into my "I don't like it" if there aren't direct ties to the area.

To clarify my previous post, I think it's important to look at the naming of the franchise with regard to where it draws its inspiration. The Pats/Vikings/Jackets draw from that area's history (or an owner's history in the case of the Blackhawks). The Jaguars do not.

I repeat: if you take the "war" out of football, you have to take out things like "fight" and "struggle" as well. Lest you be accused of war profiteering and capitalizing off patriotic sheep.

Where does the line exist? I'd say direct imitation of current US military iconography by anyone besides the service academies would be distasteful.

"Fight" and "struggle" aren't words that are exclusively associated with the military (nor have they ever been).

To me, what makes military styling distasteful is that it's playing off of that look to make money. It's not an honor ploy - it's a marketing ploy. Any association (implied or otherwise) of athletes with warriors is something I'm not personally a fan of. That's my stance.

As for the other post about their being "ties" - there are military bases in/around many major cities in the US. That doesn't mean that a franchise that just happens to be near one has ties to the military. For perspective, that would be like the Bears deciding to honor Chicago's slaughterhouse history with butcher-inspired uniforms. It's ridiculous to think that there's a tie between that institution and the franchise.

At any rate, I'll leave it at that as I've gone far enough OT with that view.

*Chicago Bulls

I'm aware. The Bears, however, choosing to honor that (or let's say the Bears choosing to "honor" Abraham Lincoln) doesn't make any sense from a historical ties point of view.

[LourdOfTheFly]

Why couldn't an IL team put Lincoln's profile or a hat patch on their jersey to celebrate some historical anniversary?

All of this iconography and inspiration has been going on since teams were identified by their hosiery or owner's principal investment.

"Blitz" means a sudden military attack. Let's not get too picky about metaphor and colloquialism.

[Island_Style]

I had a very strange and stressful day so forgive me if this was posted. Paul Lukas posted this update. Most info was right, but not all.

I have seen the jerseys already and can confirm some of your items from today. The jerseys do not have side panels but there is a truncated stripe on the pants. The jersey I saw was an authentic but saw no player name on front. The name on back is same font type as number and what was released for the primary logo. Helmet is black in front and gold in back. Logo is larger but not full on the side. There are black home, white away, and teal alternate versions. Also the "chrome" stripes aren't really chrome. The jerseys are flat and these stripes are "shiny" or just reflective black.

[OnWis97]

Jesus christ. There's a patch on the jersey and names on the front (disputed by somebody else). They're not running out there in full camo.

Military or not, it's still stupid. I know they won't be the first team to put a logo on the front (though the "Jags" nickname of a nickname is less than great). But if the last name on front is true, that's just awful, regardless of the military angle.

[sportstar1212]

Safe to say the Jags will be the WTF

Feel like we've gone over this 1000 times. The WTF, Modernization, Less caricature post was about logos only, not uniforms.

Must have missed that a 1000 times. I don't think any of the logos were wtf.

Yes there was; the Dolphins.

[Gr3g3]

Jesus christ. There's a patch on the jersey and names on the front (disputed by somebody else). They're not running out there in full camo.

Military or not, it's still stupid. I know they won't be the first team to put a logo on the front (though the "Jags" nickname of a nickname is less than great). But if the last name on front is true, that's just awful, regardless of the military angle.

Never said I'd like the names on the front, In fact I wouldn't, but the shield is a really nice logo and I'm confident it will look good on the uniforms.

[Lee Noire]

I too have never liked the "football is war" thing. I played the game and thats all it was...a GAME. However I don't mind the Jags using the military theme for inspiration. I'd argue its no different than the Seahawks last year with the tribal feather pattern. Not a direct reflection of their nickname but pulled from somthing the city/region is known for. It might be a train wreck but I actually applaud the team for not doing the obvious cat themed uni, and not just settling on a bland template like their last change.