Ultimate uniform fail

[Gothamite]

The last few posts solidifies my comment about the "idiots". While it may be harsh, it's a bit much to see these people flipping out with anti-Nike comments all over ONE tiny torn jersey. A jersey that isn't even made by Nike. I feel like people sit at home watching these games for any type of microscopic problem with the Nike jerseys just to complain. Now what's even worse is the NCAA thread, which instead of only Nike is filled with Nike, Adidas, UnderArmour, and Russell bashing. Honestly people, how can there be so much complaining about EVERY manufacturer? There's a reason these companies are the world leaders, they are obviously doing something right. Design critiquing should be based on DESIGN of the uniforms and logos, not the manufacturer.

Not made by Nike, but the specifications are 100% Nike. So if there is blame to be had, it's theirs unless you're suggesting Ripon or whoever used faulty materials.

And in this era of performance materials and improvements measured in hundredths of a percent, how do you separate design from construction? You're right that Nike doesn't actually make anything, but they tell those manufacturers exactly what to do. Anything else would make a lie of their performance claims.

I think your characterization is over the line, though. How can there be so much complaining about every manufacturer? I don't know, how can there be so much complaining about every President? Or every car company? Or every television network?

Different people like different things. And in a disparate community such as this (monolithic as it may be demographically), different and even contradictory opinions will be expressed in close proximity.

Unless you can point to a single poster actually leveling those criticisms at "EVERY manufacturer", all you've demonstrated is that opinions vary.

In that case, I think you would be justified in using "idiots". As it stands, I find it an unfair shot at your fellow posters.

[ARTnSocal]

I don't know about the others, but my comment had NOTHING to do with NFL shield being spit apart like in the one that Anna posted in the 1st post. I like the Reebok jerseys and uniforms better, pure and simple. I flat-out don't like the Nike NFL uniforms.

Pro and college football have been played for a long time without 'flywire' collars. I personally think they're a joke!! I don't believe they're worth it for the modifications needed to make those collars, and I absolutely hate looking at jerseys that have sweat stain coloring differences throughout the jersey, and that cheap-looking stitching along the front of the collar. I'm glad I purchased my authentic Reebok jersey before the Nike switchover. I love the tri-colored collar on both the home and away jerseys. Those toilet-seat collars are a joke!!

[OnWis97]

Here's a shot from this past Sunday:

 

[oldschoolvikings]

Here's a shot from this past Sunday:

Come on, wis... why even post that!?? Don't you know, only idiots complain about Nike?

[CrazyAnna]

Here's a shot from this past Sunday:

That's obviously not Nike's fault. Idiots!

[tubby34]

Here's a shot from this past Sunday:

Come on, wis... why even post that!?? Don't you know, only idiots complain about Nike?

That's another non Nike Spec jersey. Packers and Eagles were two of the hold overs from Reebok Materials.

That plastic shield cracked and split because of the pressure on the collar being pulled over his pads- in the cold weather. The tear in the mesh of the Packers player was in the old mesh. It didn't have the stretch ability of the current Nike Jerseys. I'm sure that's the reason why they designed it the way they did.

[vmd9]

Here's a shot from this past Sunday:

Come on, wis... why even post that!?? Don't you know, only idiots complain about Nike?

That's another non Nike Spec jersey. Packers and Eagles were two of the hold overs from Reebok Materials.

That plastic shield cracked and split because of the pressure on the collar being pulled over his pads- in the cold weather. The tear in the mesh of the Packers player was in the old mesh. It didn't have the stretch ability of the current Nike Jerseys. I'm sure that's the reason why they designed it the way they did.

Exactly, they are pre-2012 uniforms with Nike swooshes slapped on. The construction of those jerseys have nothing to do with Nike.

[aawagner011]

This whole thread reeks of cynicism.

[IceCap]

While it seems like some people may be unfair to Nike crying about it and being militantly pro-Nike in every case concerning that company is just as annoying.

Design critiquing should be based on DESIGN of the uniforms and logos, not the manufacturer.

Ideally, yes. Ideally manufacturers wouldn't try to use team uniforms to promote their own brands. They do, however. Like Nike outfitting the Oregon Ducks in uniforms devoid of school colours in favour of Nike colours, or outfitting the Seattle Seahawks in uniforms that feature a design element that literally highlights the Nike swoosh. Or Adidas working their three stripes into ever soccer jersey they get their hands on.

So as long as the manufacturers continue to use the design of team uniforms to promote themselves over the teams the uniforms are being made for, they deserve all the criticism they get. They blurred the lines between design and manufacturer, not us.

Here's a shot from this past Sunday:

Come on, wis... why even post that!?? Don't you know, only idiots complain about Nike?

That's another non Nike Spec jersey. Packers and Eagles were two of the hold overs from Reebok Materials.

That plastic shield cracked and split because of the pressure on the collar being pulled over his pads- in the cold weather. The tear in the mesh of the Packers player was in the old mesh. It didn't have the stretch ability of the current Nike Jerseys. I'm sure that's the reason why they designed it the way they did.

Exactly, they are pre-2012 uniforms with Nike swooshes slapped on. The construction of those jerseys have nothing to do with Nike.

You're both (vmd and tubby) wrong. Nike has the NFL uniform contract. That means that all uniforms, whether they use Nike's "cutting edge" templates and fabrics or not, are made to Nike's specifications. Atlanta, Philadelphia, Green Bay, Oakland, and Carolina still use an older uniform style, but they're not "pre-2012 uniforms with Nike swooshes slapped on."

[tubby34]

While it seems like some people may be unfair to Nike crying about it and being militantly pro-Nike in every case concerning that company is just as annoying.

Design critiquing should be based on DESIGN of the uniforms and logos, not the manufacturer.

Ideally, yes. Ideally manufacturers wouldn't try to use team uniforms to promote their own brands. They do, however. Like Nike outfitting the Oregon Ducks in uniforms devoid of school colours in favour of Nike colours, or outfitting the Seattle Seahawks in uniforms that feature a design element that literally highlights the Nike swoosh. Or Adidas working their three stripes into ever soccer jersey they get their hands on.

So as long as the manufacturers continue to use the design of team uniforms to promote themselves over the teams the uniforms are being made for, they deserve all the criticism they get. They blurred the lines between design and manufacturer, not us.

Here's a shot from this past Sunday:

Come on, wis... why even post that!?? Don't you know, only idiots complain about Nike?

That's another non Nike Spec jersey. Packers and Eagles were two of the hold overs from Reebok Materials.

That plastic shield cracked and split because of the pressure on the collar being pulled over his pads- in the cold weather. The tear in the mesh of the Packers player was in the old mesh. It didn't have the stretch ability of the current Nike Jerseys. I'm sure that's the reason why they designed it the way they did.

Exactly, they are pre-2012 uniforms with Nike swooshes slapped on. The construction of those jerseys have nothing to do with Nike.

You're both (vmd and tubby) wrong. Nike has the NFL uniform contract. That means that all uniforms, whether they use Nike's "cutting edge" templates and fabrics or not, are made to Nike's specifications. Atlanta, Philadelphia, Green Bay, Oakland, and Carolina still use an older uniform style, but they're not "pre-2012 uniforms with Nike swooshes slapped on."

Actually they are- especially GB because they wanted to remain a Ripon Athletic outfitted team on the field. I believe Philadelphia, Oakland and Carolina are Ripon outfitted as well- Aka Ripons materials and cuts/ manufacturing.

Not to mention the old lady doing green bays alterations in the basement of her home, like she has for 30 years.

Sorry Icecap- your wrong.

[TheSparks1]

Whatever the cause, this certainly isn't the ultimate uniform failure.

[CrazyAnna]

Whatever the cause, this certainly isn't the ultimate uniform failure.

Strongly disagree. The logo of the league the uniform is designed to be played in should never be destroyed or fall off. It should be held with the highest protection. I love Nike overall and have defended them countless times, so I did not intent on this being a Nike bashing thread. But I do hold Nike completely accountable for designing a plastic rubber NFL logo that could fall off or break under colder temperatures. Why didn't the make the Nike Swoosh logo on the sides out of this material as well?

[Gothamite]

Actually, he might be right.

Before Reebok lost the NFL contract, they had select teams experimenting with new fabrics. Among those were the Packers.

So while the Packers haven't adopted Nike's templates or performance materials, I think we can safely say that they're no longer using Reebok's performance materials either. And I've noticed the difference this year in terms of the super-stretched out numbers on linemen.

The Packers' uniforms of 2012 are not exactly the same as those of 2011.

[marble21]

Whatever the cause, this certainly isn't the ultimate uniform failure.

Strongly disagree. The logo of the league the uniform is designed to be played in should never be destroyed or fall off. It should be held with the highest protection.

If only there were another 89 players in uniforms for the league logo to be displayed on...

Not to mention sideline staff, field logos, referees etc.

[IceCap]

Actually, he might be right.

Before Reebok lost the NFL contract, they had select teams experimenting with new fabrics. Among those were the Packers.

So while the Packers haven't adopted Nike's templates or performance materials, I think we can safely say that they're no longer using Reebok's performance materials either. And I've noticed the difference this year in terms of the super-stretched out numbers on linemen.

The Packers' uniforms of 2012 are not exactly the same as those of 2011.

Indeed.

[johnnysama]

I find it funny that the plastic patch broke. It could be a metaphor for how the NFL is, in a way, broken.

[Gothamite]

Sure.

If the logo was really broken (which I would dispute) and the NFL was broken (which I would dispute).

[hugevolsfan]

How exactly is the NFL broken? Its the best run league. Sure it has faults but no where near as many as the rest.

[Sport]

First thought was that he cut it, but from google image searches it doesn't look like he has a history of cutting his jersey so be it from the cold or it ripping during the course of the game, it actually did crack.

But to call it the "ULTIMATE UNIFORM FAIL" is being hyperbolic. One guy in one game, out of the thousands of guys and hundreds of games this season had the logo tear on his jersey. Football's a violent sport and the uniform suffers because of it. It was bound to happen at some point.

Here's a jersey last year that got ripped. It happens.

[shaydre1019]

surprised no one has posted this yet.