2013 NFL uniform/logo changes

[PhlyBoy]

If the Dolphins and Cards have "throwbacks" available, wouldn't that leave them with 4 tops and violate the league rule? Cards: Black/White/Red Dolphins: Aqua/Orange/White

Cards could drop the black this year.

Dolphins didn't unveil orange tops, so there's that

They've been listed even WITH the Black alts.

I think some of the teams just provide throwback artwork for the heck of it.

Speaking of throwbacks, has anybody heard anything about what if anything Nike has done to the Packers' blues? I'm wondering if they'll get the HGI helmet treatment that Washington got.

Oh - I keep forgetting to post these...there are now some logos that go along with the "Acme" Packers throwbacks:

Ugh.

That top one has been floating around for years.

They're hideous.

Says the guy who likes the 90's Notre Bame Brewer logo/uniforms...

[Gothamite]

Yeah, sez me.

Those are silly modern logos pretending to be from the 1920s, but don't have anything of the period about them.

Awful.

[phutmasterflex]

http://sonofwashington.com/2013/05/10/redskins-to-make-small-change-to-white-jersey/

Redskins rid of toilet seat collar on white jerseys

[TruColor]

Yeah, sez me.

Those are silly modern logos pretending to be from the 1920s, but don't have anything of the period about them.

Awful.

Yep.

I think that's EXACTLY what they are.

[illini1]

Players would be able to see a whole crap-ton better too. If hockey players don't need masks, I don't see why football players do.

Hockey players don't get hit every single play. The purpose of football is to hit. They're both dangerous sports, but very different. I don't think we should really sacrifice safety because we don't like the way facemasks look.

I think Goth's motivation for wanting to do away with facemasks has to do with safety. If we de-weaponize the helmet by limiting the amount of protection it provides then less and less players will be willing to lead with the helmet. Which would cut down on the number of concussions.

I don't necessarily agree with that line of reasoning, but it is a valid position to hold.

It will never happen, but I agree getting rid of facemasks would reduce concussions. Players would learn to just wrap up and tackle someone after a couple players go head first without a facemask and break their nose or knock out their teeth.

[wonderbread]

Players would be able to see a whole crap-ton better too. If hockey players don't need masks, I don't see why football players do.

Hockey players don't get hit every single play. The purpose of football is to hit. They're both dangerous sports, but very different. I don't think we should really sacrifice safety because we don't like the way facemasks look.

I think Goth's motivation for wanting to do away with facemasks has to do with safety. If we de-weaponize the helmet by limiting the amount of protection it provides then less and less players will be willing to lead with the helmet. Which would cut down on the number of concussions.

I don't necessarily agree with that line of reasoning, but it is a valid position to hold.

It will never happen, but I agree getting rid of facemasks would reduce concussions. Players would learn to just wrap up and tackle someone after a couple players go head first without a facemask and break their nose or knock out their teeth.

the reason why they dont need facemasks in hockey versus football which you do, is because of the way the two sports hit. In hockey you at the most will use a shoulder, but most of the time you are using your arms to push into someone and knock them down. In football you helmet almost always get hit, because of the way that you have to wrap people up in football, it's virtually impossible to not smack your head when hitting someone, without a face mask every defensive player at the least will be getting broken noses and jaws without face masks.

[guest23]

Players would be able to see a whole crap-ton better too. If hockey players don't need masks, I don't see why football players do.

Hockey players don't get hit every single play. The purpose of football is to hit. They're both dangerous sports, but very different. I don't think we should really sacrifice safety because we don't like the way facemasks look.

I think Goth's motivation for wanting to do away with facemasks has to do with safety. If we de-weaponize the helmet by limiting the amount of protection it provides then less and less players will be willing to lead with the helmet. Which would cut down on the number of concussions.

I don't necessarily agree with that line of reasoning, but it is a valid position to hold.

It will never happen, but I agree getting rid of facemasks would reduce concussions. Players would learn to just wrap up and tackle someone after a couple players go head first without a facemask and break their nose or knock out their teeth.

the reason why they dont need facemasks in hockey versus football which you do, is because of the way the two sports hit. In hockey you at the most will use a shoulder, but most of the time you are using your arms to push into someone and knock them down. In football you helmet almost always get hit, because of the way that you have to wrap people up in football, it's virtually impossible to not smack your head when hitting someone, without a face mask every defensive player at the least will be getting broken noses and jaws without face masks.

The one major difference is that football headgear evolved into into its current weaponized form. Rugby is a much better example of how how the sport drastically evolved away from its natural roots. Many rugby players wear pads but they are soft so the opportunity for additional protection exists without moving to battle armour.

One rule that football could immediately adopt from rugby, is the mandatory wrap tackle. Defensive players can still attempt to try to blow guys up with a big hit but they also have to assume the increased risk of dislocating a shoulder or breaking a collarbone with fundamentally unsound technique.

[illini1]

Players would be able to see a whole crap-ton better too. If hockey players don't need masks, I don't see why football players do.

Hockey players don't get hit every single play. The purpose of football is to hit. They're both dangerous sports, but very different. I don't think we should really sacrifice safety because we don't like the way facemasks look.

I think Goth's motivation for wanting to do away with facemasks has to do with safety. If we de-weaponize the helmet by limiting the amount of protection it provides then less and less players will be willing to lead with the helmet. Which would cut down on the number of concussions.

I don't necessarily agree with that line of reasoning, but it is a valid position to hold.

It will never happen, but I agree getting rid of facemasks would reduce concussions. Players would learn to just wrap up and tackle someone after a couple players go head first without a facemask and break their nose or knock out their teeth.

the reason why they dont need facemasks in hockey versus football which you do, is because of the way the two sports hit. In hockey you at the most will use a shoulder, but most of the time you are using your arms to push into someone and knock them down. In football you helmet almost always get hit, because of the way that you have to wrap people up in football, it's virtually impossible to not smack your head when hitting someone, without a face mask every defensive player at the least will be getting broken noses and jaws without face masks.

The one major difference is that football headgear evolved into into its current weaponized form. Rugby is a much better example of how how the sport drastically evolved away from its natural roots. Many rugby players wear pads but they are soft so the opportunity for additional protection exists without moving to battle armour.

One rule that football could immediately adopt from rugby, is the mandatory wrap tackle. Defensive players can still attempt to try to blow guys up with a big hit but they also have to assume the increased risk of dislocating a shoulder or breaking a collarbone with fundamentally unsound technique.

Exactly. I've been asking for years if facemasks and helmets are so important, then why aren't there as many head injuries in rugby.

[themightyspitz]

Players would be able to see a whole crap-ton better too. If hockey players don't need masks, I don't see why football players do.

Hockey players don't get hit every single play. The purpose of football is to hit. They're both dangerous sports, but very different. I don't think we should really sacrifice safety because we don't like the way facemasks look.

I think Goth's motivation for wanting to do away with facemasks has to do with safety. If we de-weaponize the helmet by limiting the amount of protection it provides then less and less players will be willing to lead with the helmet. Which would cut down on the number of concussions.

I don't necessarily agree with that line of reasoning, but it is a valid position to hold.

It will never happen, but I agree getting rid of facemasks would reduce concussions. Players would learn to just wrap up and tackle someone after a couple players go head first without a facemask and break their nose or knock out their teeth.

the reason why they dont need facemasks in hockey versus football which you do, is because of the way the two sports hit. In hockey you at the most will use a shoulder, but most of the time you are using your arms to push into someone and knock them down. In football you helmet almost always get hit, because of the way that you have to wrap people up in football, it's virtually impossible to not smack your head when hitting someone, without a face mask every defensive player at the least will be getting broken noses and jaws without face masks.

The one major difference is that football headgear evolved into into its current weaponized form. Rugby is a much better example of how how the sport drastically evolved away from its natural roots. Many rugby players wear pads but they are soft so the opportunity for additional protection exists without moving to battle armour.

One rule that football could immediately adopt from rugby, is the mandatory wrap tackle. Defensive players can still attempt to try to blow guys up with a big hit but they also have to assume the increased risk of dislocating a shoulder or breaking a collarbone with fundamentally unsound technique.

Exactly. I've been asking for years if facemasks and helmets are so important, then why aren't there as many head injuries in rugby.

It is. We don't hear about it as much. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/sports/rugby/24iht-rugby24.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[guest23]

Players would be able to see a whole crap-ton better too. If hockey players don't need masks, I don't see why football players do.

Hockey players don't get hit every single play. The purpose of football is to hit. They're both dangerous sports, but very different. I don't think we should really sacrifice safety because we don't like the way facemasks look.

I think Goth's motivation for wanting to do away with facemasks has to do with safety. If we de-weaponize the helmet by limiting the amount of protection it provides then less and less players will be willing to lead with the helmet. Which would cut down on the number of concussions.

I don't necessarily agree with that line of reasoning, but it is a valid position to hold.

It will never happen, but I agree getting rid of facemasks would reduce concussions. Players would learn to just wrap up and tackle someone after a couple players go head first without a facemask and break their nose or knock out their teeth.

the reason why they dont need facemasks in hockey versus football which you do, is because of the way the two sports hit. In hockey you at the most will use a shoulder, but most of the time you are using your arms to push into someone and knock them down. In football you helmet almost always get hit, because of the way that you have to wrap people up in football, it's virtually impossible to not smack your head when hitting someone, without a face mask every defensive player at the least will be getting broken noses and jaws without face masks.

The one major difference is that football headgear evolved into into its current weaponized form. Rugby is a much better example of how how the sport drastically evolved away from its natural roots. Many rugby players wear pads but they are soft so the opportunity for additional protection exists without moving to battle armour.

One rule that football could immediately adopt from rugby, is the mandatory wrap tackle. Defensive players can still attempt to try to blow guys up with a big hit but they also have to assume the increased risk of dislocating a shoulder or breaking a collarbone with fundamentally unsound technique.

Exactly. I've been asking for years if facemasks and helmets are so important, then why aren't there as many head injuries in rugby.

It is. We don't hear about it as much. http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

After reading the article there is nothing written that definitively says that rugby concussions are anywhere near the same level as football. The article is simply stating that the IRB is investigating the matter to actually quantify how bad of a problem they have.

No tackling based sport (or even soccer for that matter) will ever be free from head injuries but to put rugby at the same level of american football is premature to say the least.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, I'm not sure at all that we can compare the two.

We need to start studying the brains of deceased rugby players for CTE (until the technology improves to the point where we can study live patients). Then we can start to see how comparable they really are.

[TheSoundofThrowingPennies]

So, the reason I have not been on lately is because I got a job! (Wooo!) My new job is at a sports shop in Colorado called Prime Time Sports. We were told this morning that when customers come in and ask if/when the Broncos Nike jerseys would be available for purchase with a full color collar (re: no toilet seat) to tell them yes, and mid July.

So, the Broncos are indeed switching to a full color collar, a la Houston.

[dsaline97]

So, the reason I have not been on lately is because I got a job! (Wooo!) My new job is at a sports shop in Colorado called Prime Time Sports. We were told this morning that when customers come in and ask if/when the Broncos Nike jerseys would be available for purchase with a full color collar (re: no toilet seat) to tell them yes, and mid July.

So, the Broncos are indeed switching to a full color collar, a la Houston.

Congratulations.

And congratulations to the Broncos.

[AgentColon]

So, the reason I have not been on lately is because I got a job! (Wooo!) My new job is at a sports shop in Colorado called Prime Time Sports. We were told this morning that when customers come in and ask if/when the Broncos Nike jerseys would be available for purchase with a full color collar (re: no toilet seat) to tell them yes, and mid July.

So, the Broncos are indeed switching to a full color collar, a la Houston.

Congratulations.

And congratulations to the Broncos.

What about that wacky helmet stripe we saw on ESPN?

[TruColor]

Wasn't sure where to post this, but this pic struck me as interesting yesterday:

1. Karlos Dansby in a Cardinals uniform again.

2. Karlos Dansby wearing #55 (as opposed to his former #58, which is already taken by his former replacement, Daryl Washington).

3. Karlos Dansby wearing Miami Dolphins cleats with a Cardinals practice uniform.

[shaydre1019]

Yeah, I'm not sure at all that we can compare the two.

We need to start studying the brains of deceased rugby players for CTE (until the technology improves to the point where we can study live patients). Then we can start to see how comparable they really are.

I don't think it's so much the technique in rugby, but the nature of the sport. Mind you I don't know a whole lot about rugby, but I don't think you have people going across the middle with people waiting for them and I'm sure there's way less blindside tackles.

If I'm not mistaken rugby is like a bunch of laterals and punts yes? And with the ball constantly moving around there are less gang tackles so they have to focus more on wrapping up as opposed to making contact and waiting for help. Also alOt less downhill running.

Oh and a quick hockey question: is it legal to wear a full visor in the NHL? I remember seeing them in mighty ducks and I thought that thy looked sick. So is it illegal or uncomfortable or just frowned upon?

[sportstar1212]

Yeah, I'm not sure at all that we can compare the two.

We need to start studying the brains of deceased rugby players for CTE (until the technology improves to the point where we can study live patients). Then we can start to see how comparable they really are.

I don't think it's so much the technique in rugby, but the nature of the sport. Mind you I don't know a whole lot about rugby, but I don't think you have people going across the middle with people waiting for them and I'm sure there's way less blindside tackles.

If I'm not mistaken rugby is like a bunch of laterals and punts yes? And with the ball constantly moving around there are less gang tackles so they have to focus more on wrapping up as opposed to making contact and waiting for help. Also alOt less downhill running.

Oh and a quick hockey question: is it legal to wear a full visor in the NHL? I remember seeing them in mighty ducks and I thought that thy looked sick. So is it illegal or uncomfortable or just frowned upon?

Wearing a full facemask is allowed in the NHL. You only really see them on guys still recovering of facial injuries but if a player wants to wear one, by all means.

[AlexWilson]

So, the reason I have not been on lately is because I got a job! (Wooo!) My new job is at a sports shop in Colorado called Prime Time Sports. We were told this morning that when customers come in and ask if/when the Broncos Nike jerseys would be available for purchase with a full color collar (re: no toilet seat) to tell them yes, and mid July.

So, the Broncos are indeed switching to a full color collar, a la Houston.

Congratulations.

And congratulations to the Broncos.

What about that wacky helmet stripe we saw on ESPN?

Via Colorwerx:

[wonderbread]

So, the reason I have not been on lately is because I got a job! (Wooo!) My new job is at a sports shop in Colorado called Prime Time Sports. We were told this morning that when customers come in and ask if/when the Broncos Nike jerseys would be available for purchase with a full color collar (re: no toilet seat) to tell them yes, and mid July.

So, the Broncos are indeed switching to a full color collar, a la Houston.

Congratulations.

And congratulations to the Broncos.

What about that wacky helmet stripe we saw on ESPN?

Via Colorwerx:

I think he was talking about the picture that showed the broncos helmet with titans helmet stripe

[dissident93]

take it for what its worth, but a redskins blogger said they are ditching nike's horrific 'toilet bowl' around the neck on their white jerseys... hopefully we get confirmations that others are following suit

here is some more info. he says others teams are doing the same thing, and apparently the broncos have been confirmed as well.