2013 NFL uniform/logo changes

[TruColor]

Which reminds me, is the Saints' gold jersey still in the guide? I assume not since they have the throwbacks. (Sorry, don't have access to the info you shared a while back or I'd look.)

Nope.

[powersurge]

dead horse: i fail to see how grey facemasks are any different than black shoes, and are only slightly different than the hockey sticks not matching the team colors of their user.

My point exactly. So if the Colts players all wear black shoes does that allow the Colts to utilize black in their color scheme? I don't think so. Why would it be any different for the Giants and their grey facemask?

[Gothamite]

Grey really isn't a color. I really don't want to get into that argument, but it really isn't.

Yes, it really is.

I get that black and gray are not true colors. But this isn't a physics classroom, and in the real human world, in textile terms and pigments, we somehow make do.

You could say the same thing about black, but I don't think anyone here would buy the argument that the Falcons' colors are red and white or the Nets' are just white. Heck, we could make an argument that the Raiders don't actually have any team colors at all.

[TruColor]

dead horse: i fail to see how grey facemasks are any different than black shoes, and are only slightly different than the hockey sticks not matching the team colors of their user.

My point exactly. So if the Colts players all wear black shoes does that allow the Colts to utilize black in their color scheme? I don't think so. Why would it be any different for the Giants and their grey facemask?

Because when you look at a player in full uniform, most of us don't look at the player's feet. However, the facemask covers the player's face, and is a much more prominent aspect of the full uniform.

[Fox]

While the grey facemasks might be neutral, grey pants are not. The Giants consider grey a team color. To me, a pair of white pants with no grey in them would be as bad as the Seahawks leaving lime green out of their silver pants. I think the grey in the stripe is more than justified.

[Gothamite]

dead horse: i fail to see how grey facemasks are any different than black shoes, and are only slightly different than the hockey sticks not matching the team colors of their user.

My point exactly. So if the Colts players all wear black shoes does that allow the Colts to utilize black in their color scheme? I don't think so. Why would it be any different for the Giants and their grey facemask?

Because when you look at a player in full uniform, most of us don't look at the player's feet. However, the facemask covers the player's face, and is a much more prominent aspect of the full uniform.

Certainly for the vast majority of fans, but you remind me of a story.

I remember watching the first game of 2008 with my then-regular Packers group. Most of whom ran the gamut between amused and dismissive about my new Packers uniform blog.

The players run out of the tunnel, and I'm instantly thinking "What the hell? Black shoes?" They had worn white all through the preseason to keep the change secret.

The best part is that while I thought it, I wasn't the first in my group to actually say something out loud. That guy can't ever call me a uniform geek again.

[Billy B]

dead horse: i fail to see how grey facemasks are any different than black shoes, and are only slightly different than the hockey sticks not matching the team colors of their user.

My point exactly. So if the Colts players all wear black shoes does that allow the Colts to utilize black in their color scheme? I don't think so. Why would it be any different for the Giants and their grey facemask?

Because when you look at a player in full uniform, most of us don't look at the player's feet. However, the facemask covers the player's face, and is a much more prominent aspect of the full uniform.

While I agree with this, I still think teams should try to match their shoes to their uniform as much as possible. Teams with black in their scheme should wear black shoes, but if they don't I'd prefer to see them in white shoes with team color accents.

[oldschoolvikings]

I've always found a grey face mask to be neutral

But they aren't neutral. They stick out like a sore thumb if there's no grey anywhere else in the uniform. The grey facemasks work for the Giants because of the pants, and including the grey in the stripes on the white pants maintains that continuity. Now I just wish they'd fix the jerseys to match that striping pattern. Maybe something like this:

In your opinion.

Are we really doing this again? If this argument starts up again, I'm going to start advocating that every team at every level starts wearing gray masks.

[powersurge]

dead horse: i fail to see how grey facemasks are any different than black shoes, and are only slightly different than the hockey sticks not matching the team colors of their user.

My point exactly. So if the Colts players all wear black shoes does that allow the Colts to utilize black in their color scheme? I don't think so. Why would it be any different for the Giants and their grey facemask?

Because when you look at a player in full uniform, most of us don't look at the player's feet. However, the facemask covers the player's face, and is a much more prominent aspect of the full uniform.

While you make a great point here, I still do believe that much like in baseball where you have home white and grey away uniforms the white and grey face mask in football falls in a similarly more neutral category. I know its not universally agreed upon by everyone on this board but I'm definitely part of the neutral camp. I'll leave it at that because I'm sure this argument has been beaten into oblivion

[IceCap]

The more I think about the uniform/equipment divide the more and more the idea of facemasks being equipment makes sense.

[Chawls]

I've always found a grey face mask to be neutral

But they aren't neutral. They stick out like a sore thumb if there's no grey anywhere else in the uniform. The grey facemasks work for the Giants because of the pants, and including the grey in the stripes on the white pants maintains that continuity. Now I just wish they'd fix the jerseys to match that striping pattern. Maybe something like this:

In your opinion.

...and my opinion too. I actually agree with the bolded part.

[uk-owns-iu]

Is it grey or gray?

[Chawls]

Is it grey or gray?

Depends on where you live.

[TheSoundofThrowingPennies]

dead horse: i fail to see how grey facemasks are any different than black shoes, and are only slightly different than the hockey sticks not matching the team colors of their user.

My point exactly. So if the Colts players all wear black shoes does that allow the Colts to utilize black in their color scheme? I don't think so. Why would it be any different for the Giants and their grey facemask?

Because when you look at a player in full uniform, most of us don't look at the player's feet. However, the facemask covers the player's face, and is a much more prominent aspect of the full uniform.

Speak for yourself. The Colts should where white shoes. would improve their overall look tenfold

[Lights Out]

The more I think about the uniform/equipment divide the more and more the idea of facemasks being equipment makes sense.

Ehhh, that ship has sailed considering how often helmets are used in the NFL's marketing.

[TheOldRoman]

Teams with black in their scheme should wear black shoes, but if they don't I'd prefer to see them in white shoes with team color accents.

I disagree. I dislike black shoes in general; I think they're clunky and look awkward. I really like that the Steelers and Raiders have held out and not jumped to black shoes, and I think the Bears, Colts and Packers both look worse with black shoes.

What I don't get about the black shoe factions is that people want all historical teams to wear black shoes because that's what was worn in the sixties, but people also want awful new uniformed teams like the Seahawks to wear black because it's sleek and aggressive or whatever crap. If they're retro, don't they look out of place for the Seahawks? They can't be both retro and modern.

[Gothamite]

What I don't get about the black shoe factions is that people want all historical teams to wear black shoes because that's what was worn in the sixties, but people also want awful new uniformed teams like the Seahawks to wear black because it's sleek and aggressive or whatever crap. If they're retro, don't they look out of place for the Seahawks? They can't be both retro and modern.

Well, you'll need to find somebody who actually argues both positions before we can really address that.

I disagree. I dislike black shoes in general; I think they're clunky and look awkward.

Exactly why I dislike white shoes.

Black shoes disappear into the background, white draw attention to the players' feet. Black shoes look sleeker, while white give even the most athletic man a pair of monstrous clodhoppers.

[TruColor]

Black shoes disappear into the background, white draw attention to the players' feet. Black shoes look sleeker, while white give even the most athletic man a pair of monstrous clodhoppers.

I always thought the opposite.

Weird.

I think of Black shoes along the lines of old men who wear White socks with Black shoes. Truly horrific.

If they wear Black shoes, then Black socks. White shoes - White socks.

[BlueSky]

While the grey facemasks might be neutral, grey pants are not. The Giants consider grey a team color. To me, a pair of white pants with no grey in them would be as bad as the Seahawks leaving lime green out of their silver pants. I think the grey in the stripe is more than justified.

Justified does not equal "looks good."

[GFB]

Probably nothing, but the Lions have black pants this training camp:

While the Lions have used black shorts in the past, whenever they've gone with pants, they've always been silver:

Just something to keep on eye on...