canzman

2013 NFL Season week by week uniform match-up combos

Recommended Posts

^^ Because the Panthers traditionally designate their blue jerseys for home games, so you are more likely to recognize them as the Panthers if it's an outdoor game played on grass.

And similar yes, but "very" similar? Aside from similar color schemes, their designs are nothing alike. Average Joe may not know pantone, but Average Joe can differentiate two distinct shades of blue.

Same color scheme with slightly different colors and two completely different designs. Going with what the OP said, the Panthers are recognizable. I have never confused them with the Lions, as he is suggesting.

And as for the Broncos and Bears, yes, their color schemes are also similar but never have I not recognized the Bears or Broncos when I see them on TV. There's enough difference in their design for me to differentiate easily.

135518465_crop_650x440.jpg

To clarify I never stated that bears/broncos or lions/panthers could not be identified from one another espeically on tv. My argument is similar to others that in the instance of the latter teams, their looks essentially copy the balance of colors of longer established teams which do not make them exact copies of the older teams but do in fact create a very similar look.

To also reitereate my main point, when you have only 32 teams and a huge palette of colors to choose from how difficult is it to define a unique primary look (helmet/jersey/pant) as opposed to duplicating one that already exists?

Well, the discussion is about distinct looks, which I am stating that despite the Broncos and Bears sharing same colors, their design is still distinct where I can never confuse them. For looks not to be distinct, they cannot be recognizable from another look, which is what OP is saying.

Yeah we can have every team have a unique color scheme, but some teams with a certain history won't deviate too far from what they used to have. That's why the Broncos stuck with their colors, but just made their blue and orange darker. Now because the designs for both teams are so different, they can afford to have the same colors. If their designs were similar, then there wouldn't be too much of a discussion. that's how I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Because the Panthers traditionally designate their blue jerseys for home games, so you are more likely to recognize them as the Panthers if it's an outdoor game played on grass.

And similar yes, but "very" similar? Aside from similar color schemes, their designs are nothing alike. Average Joe may not know pantone, but Average Joe can differentiate two distinct shades of blue.

Same color scheme with slightly different colors and two completely different designs. Going with what the OP said, the Panthers are recognizable. I have never confused them with the Lions, as he is suggesting.

And as for the Broncos and Bears, yes, their color schemes are also similar but never have I not recognized the Bears or Broncos when I see them on TV. There's enough difference in their design for me to differentiate easily.

135518465_crop_650x440.jpg

To clarify I never stated that bears/broncos or lions/panthers could not be identified from one another espeically on tv. My argument is similar to others that in the instance of the latter teams, their looks essentially copy the balance of colors of longer established teams which do not make them exact copies of the older teams but do in fact create a very similar look.

To also reitereate my main point, when you have only 32 teams and a huge palette of colors to choose from how difficult is it to define a unique primary look (helmet/jersey/pant) as opposed to duplicating one that already exists?

Well, the discussion is about distinct looks, which I am stating that despite the Broncos and Bears sharing same colors, their design is still distinct where I can never confuse them. For looks not to be distinct, they cannot be recognizable from another look, which is what OP is saying.

Yeah we can have every team have a unique color scheme, but some teams with a certain history won't deviate too far from what they used to have. That's why the Broncos stuck with their colors, but just made their blue and orange darker. Now because the designs for both teams are so different, they can afford to have the same colors. If their designs were similar, then there wouldn't be too much of a discussion. that's how I see it.

I completely disagree. Both Denver and Carolina were completely lazy in adopting similar (but not identical) looks of existing franchises when they could have differentiated themselves quite easily. You can make the claim that the broncos darkened their shade of blue but in the end result they went from being orange dominant with royal accents to navy dominant with orange trim. Had they kept orange as the primary it would've been a much more evolutionary design as opposed to a late 90's trend hopper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Because the Panthers traditionally designate their blue jerseys for home games, so you are more likely to recognize them as the Panthers if it's an outdoor game played on grass.

And similar yes, but "very" similar? Aside from similar color schemes, their designs are nothing alike. Average Joe may not know pantone, but Average Joe can differentiate two distinct shades of blue.

Same color scheme with slightly different colors and two completely different designs. Going with what the OP said, the Panthers are recognizable. I have never confused them with the Lions, as he is suggesting.

And as for the Broncos and Bears, yes, their color schemes are also similar but never have I not recognized the Bears or Broncos when I see them on TV. There's enough difference in their design for me to differentiate easily.

135518465_crop_650x440.jpg

To clarify I never stated that bears/broncos or lions/panthers could not be identified from one another espeically on tv. My argument is similar to others that in the instance of the latter teams, their looks essentially copy the balance of colors of longer established teams which do not make them exact copies of the older teams but do in fact create a very similar look.

To also reitereate my main point, when you have only 32 teams and a huge palette of colors to choose from how difficult is it to define a unique primary look (helmet/jersey/pant) as opposed to duplicating one that already exists?

Well, the discussion is about distinct looks, which I am stating that despite the Broncos and Bears sharing same colors, their design is still distinct where I can never confuse them. For looks not to be distinct, they cannot be recognizable from another look, which is what OP is saying.

Yeah we can have every team have a unique color scheme, but some teams with a certain history won't deviate too far from what they used to have. That's why the Broncos stuck with their colors, but just made their blue and orange darker. Now because the designs for both teams are so different, they can afford to have the same colors. If their designs were similar, then there wouldn't be too much of a discussion. that's how I see it.

I completely disagree. Both Denver and Carolina were completely lazy in adopting similar (but not identical) looks of existing franchises when they could have differentiated themselves quite easily. You can make the claim that the broncos darkened their shade of blue but in the end result they went from being orange dominant with royal accents to navy dominant with orange trim. Had they kept orange as the primary it would've been a much more evolutionary design as opposed to a late 90's trend hopper.

The Lions didn't have black when the Panthers came into the league, so that argument is invalid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Because the Panthers traditionally designate their blue jerseys for home games, so you are more likely to recognize them as the Panthers if it's an outdoor game played on grass.

And similar yes, but "very" similar? Aside from similar color schemes, their designs are nothing alike. Average Joe may not know pantone, but Average Joe can differentiate two distinct shades of blue.

Same color scheme with slightly different colors and two completely different designs. Going with what the OP said, the Panthers are recognizable. I have never confused them with the Lions, as he is suggesting.

And as for the Broncos and Bears, yes, their color schemes are also similar but never have I not recognized the Bears or Broncos when I see them on TV. There's enough difference in their design for me to differentiate easily.

135518465_crop_650x440.jpg

To clarify I never stated that bears/broncos or lions/panthers could not be identified from one another espeically on tv. My argument is similar to others that in the instance of the latter teams, their looks essentially copy the balance of colors of longer established teams which do not make them exact copies of the older teams but do in fact create a very similar look.

To also reitereate my main point, when you have only 32 teams and a huge palette of colors to choose from how difficult is it to define a unique primary look (helmet/jersey/pant) as opposed to duplicating one that already exists?

Well, the discussion is about distinct looks, which I am stating that despite the Broncos and Bears sharing same colors, their design is still distinct where I can never confuse them. For looks not to be distinct, they cannot be recognizable from another look, which is what OP is saying.

Yeah we can have every team have a unique color scheme, but some teams with a certain history won't deviate too far from what they used to have. That's why the Broncos stuck with their colors, but just made their blue and orange darker. Now because the designs for both teams are so different, they can afford to have the same colors. If their designs were similar, then there wouldn't be too much of a discussion. that's how I see it.

I completely disagree. Both Denver and Carolina were completely lazy in adopting similar (but not identical) looks of existing franchises when they could have differentiated themselves quite easily. You can make the claim that the broncos darkened their shade of blue but in the end result they went from being orange dominant with royal accents to navy dominant with orange trim. Had they kept orange as the primary it would've been a much more evolutionary design as opposed to a late 90's trend hopper.

The Lions didn't have black when the Panthers came into the league, so that argument is invalid.

^ True

Plus for a team that wanted a new fresh look, why would they continue with orange? Maybe they initially thought orange but didn't like it, so they went with blue.

EDIT: Jags wearing black tomorrow it looks https://twitter.com/David_Tossell/status/394085243281350656

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Because the Panthers traditionally designate their blue jerseys for home games, so you are more likely to recognize them as the Panthers if it's an outdoor game played on grass.

And similar yes, but "very" similar? Aside from similar color schemes, their designs are nothing alike. Average Joe may not know pantone, but Average Joe can differentiate two distinct shades of blue.

Same color scheme with slightly different colors and two completely different designs. Going with what the OP said, the Panthers are recognizable. I have never confused them with the Lions, as he is suggesting.

And as for the Broncos and Bears, yes, their color schemes are also similar but never have I not recognized the Bears or Broncos when I see them on TV. There's enough difference in their design for me to differentiate easily.

135518465_crop_650x440.jpg

To clarify I never stated that bears/broncos or lions/panthers could not be identified from one another espeically on tv. My argument is similar to others that in the instance of the latter teams, their looks essentially copy the balance of colors of longer established teams which do not make them exact copies of the older teams but do in fact create a very similar look.

To also reitereate my main point, when you have only 32 teams and a huge palette of colors to choose from how difficult is it to define a unique primary look (helmet/jersey/pant) as opposed to duplicating one that already exists?

Well, the discussion is about distinct looks, which I am stating that despite the Broncos and Bears sharing same colors, their design is still distinct where I can never confuse them. For looks not to be distinct, they cannot be recognizable from another look, which is what OP is saying.

Yeah we can have every team have a unique color scheme, but some teams with a certain history won't deviate too far from what they used to have. That's why the Broncos stuck with their colors, but just made their blue and orange darker. Now because the designs for both teams are so different, they can afford to have the same colors. If their designs were similar, then there wouldn't be too much of a discussion. that's how I see it.

I completely disagree. Both Denver and Carolina were completely lazy in adopting similar (but not identical) looks of existing franchises when they could have differentiated themselves quite easily. You can make the claim that the broncos darkened their shade of blue but in the end result they went from being orange dominant with royal accents to navy dominant with orange trim. Had they kept orange as the primary it would've been a much more evolutionary design as opposed to a late 90's trend hopper.

The Lions didn't have black when the Panthers came into the league, so that argument is invalid.

^ True

Plus for a team that wanted a new fresh look, why would they continue with orange? Maybe they initially thought orange but didn't like it, so they went with blue.

EDIT: Jags wearing black tomorrow it looks https://twitter.com/David_Tossell/status/394085243281350656

I can chime in here. The Broncos ditched orange because of all the heartbreaking losses they suffered in them. Pat Bowlen has never allowed the throwbacks to be worn that featured the D and smoke blowing horse to be worn since making the switch because it reminds him of the loss to Jacksonville in 1996

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can chime in here. The Broncos ditched orange because of all the heartbreaking losses they suffered in them. Pat Bowlen has never allowed the throwbacks to be worn that featured the D and smoke blowing horse to be worn since making the switch because it reminds him of the loss to Jacksonville in 1996

I'm pretty sure they wore Orange Crush throwbacks, complete with horse/D logo, for a Thanksgiving game against the Cowboys back in the early/mid 2000s.

Also they currently wear orange primaries now. So obviously Bowlen's gotten over that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can chime in here. The Broncos ditched orange because of all the heartbreaking losses they suffered in them. Pat Bowlen has never allowed the throwbacks to be worn that featured the D and smoke blowing horse to be worn since making the switch because it reminds him of the loss to Jacksonville in 1996

I'm pretty sure they wore Orange Crush throwbacks, complete with horse/D logo, for a Thanksgiving game against the Cowboys back in the early/mid 2000s.

Also they currently wear orange primaries now. So obviously Bowlen's gotten over

You're right. 2001. That was the reason he gave at a conference call with season ticket holders a few years ago. so I don't know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can chime in here. The Broncos ditched orange because of all the heartbreaking losses they suffered in them. Pat Bowlen has never allowed the throwbacks to be worn that featured the D and smoke blowing horse to be worn since making the switch because it reminds him of the loss to Jacksonville in 1996

I'm pretty sure they wore Orange Crush throwbacks, complete with horse/D logo, for a Thanksgiving game against the Cowboys back in the early/mid 2000s.

Also they currently wear orange primaries now. So obviously Bowlen's gotten over that.

5182505581_98f9894ec1_o.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Because the Panthers traditionally designate their blue jerseys for home games, so you are more likely to recognize them as the Panthers if it's an outdoor game played on grass.

And similar yes, but "very" similar? Aside from similar color schemes, their designs are nothing alike. Average Joe may not know pantone, but Average Joe can differentiate two distinct shades of blue.

Same color scheme with slightly different colors and two completely different designs. Going with what the OP said, the Panthers are recognizable. I have never confused them with the Lions, as he is suggesting.

And as for the Broncos and Bears, yes, their color schemes are also similar but never have I not recognized the Bears or Broncos when I see them on TV. There's enough difference in their design for me to differentiate easily.

135518465_crop_650x440.jpg

To clarify I never stated that bears/broncos or lions/panthers could not be identified from one another espeically on tv. My argument is similar to others that in the instance of the latter teams, their looks essentially copy the balance of colors of longer established teams which do not make them exact copies of the older teams but do in fact create a very similar look.

To also reitereate my main point, when you have only 32 teams and a huge palette of colors to choose from how difficult is it to define a unique primary look (helmet/jersey/pant) as opposed to duplicating one that already exists?

Well, the discussion is about distinct looks, which I am stating that despite the Broncos and Bears sharing same colors, their design is still distinct where I can never confuse them. For looks not to be distinct, they cannot be recognizable from another look, which is what OP is saying.

Yeah we can have every team have a unique color scheme, but some teams with a certain history won't deviate too far from what they used to have. That's why the Broncos stuck with their colors, but just made their blue and orange darker. Now because the designs for both teams are so different, they can afford to have the same colors. If their designs were similar, then there wouldn't be too much of a discussion. that's how I see it.

I completely disagree. Both Denver and Carolina were completely lazy in adopting similar (but not identical) looks of existing franchises when they could have differentiated themselves quite easily. You can make the claim that the broncos darkened their shade of blue but in the end result they went from being orange dominant with royal accents to navy dominant with orange trim. Had they kept orange as the primary it would've been a much more evolutionary design as opposed to a late 90's trend hopper.

The Lions didn't have black when the Panthers came into the league, so that argument is invalid.

FWIW, Al Davis filed suit against the Panthers for wearing silver/black/silver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw on twitter that the Bills are in white on blue and the Saints in black on gold, which they did not wear at home all last season.

I don't understand why the Jags said they would be in white for this game???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw on twitter that the Bills are in white on blue and the Saints in black on gold, which they did not wear at home all last season.

I don't understand why the Jags said they would be in white for this game???

They said that before the season began and you know, things change between then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First time watching them in game action, these Jags uniforms are TERRIBLE in every single conceivable way. There is literally nothing about them that is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Falcons and Cardinals both look like ass clowns. IMO one of the worst dressed games of the season so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bengals are in all black, not black/white

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.