NFL monochrome uniforms

[TheOldRoman]

Um, the general history of the game?

Right, but let's acknowledge that aesthetics do slowly evolve over time. The Kansas City Chiefs uniform, which most people here look at as the epitome of a football uniform or even an archetype would have been "against the established aesthetics of the game" back in the '30s and '40s.

Granted the sport was young then, but teams from coast to coast, pro and amateur, all had similar looking styles of uniforms (brownish pants, multi-striped long-sleeved shirts, etc.) Then it evolved into what it became in the '60s - '00s, and might be evolving again. IMO these monochrome uniforms and uniforms that are designed to "cohesively flow" from head to toe are still the exception, but if it continues much longer, eventually the established aesthetic will be for these types of uniforms, with the "traditional" ones becoming the outliers.

The game looked different 80 years ago, but the established aesthetics of football were developed in the '50s and '60s, with the advent of TV and the game exploding in popularity. So it would be dumb for the Bears to wear an orange jersey and navy pants just because they did that back in the early '30s, it is not how the Bears are supposed to look based on how they have looked since any video of them playing existed. Football aesthetics established, and then they didn't change. As crazy as the Chargers' and Bengals' classic sets may have seemed at the time, they weren't against the aesthetics. They were in traditional templates, with crazy designs confined into a normal striping region. The first set which challenged aesthetics was the Broncos set with the (poorly) connecting side stripes. Then teams started wearing monochrome, when over the previous years that was reserved for teams which packed the wrong jerseys and cheap high schools which didn't want to have to replace stained pants as often. So, there was a certain way football teams looked for 50 years, then some teams started looking like rollerderby teams just because. Maybe they are evolving the aesthetics of football, and maybe monochromes will be looked back upon as pullover baseball jerseys with skin-tight pants.

[hugevolsfan]

Monochrome can look good. I loved Seattle's first scuba suit for example. But most of the time I think the players look like unathletic blobs, particularly when it's a brighter color like red or Tennessee's light blue.

I like to see the colors separated a little bit. These aren't steadfast rules, but for me I prefer helmets that are a different color from the jersey. All white is acceptable and can look good, primarily because I'm used to it, but all yellow looks stupid. Why is that? I don't know, but it's how it goes.

If I had to choose though, my favorite football uniforms the helmet is the brighter color, the jersey is the darker color, the pants match the helmet color or they're white, and the socks match the jersey color. It's why packers look good, but the Titans regular home look looks stupid. If the Titans went back to their original home look or wore a light blue helmet, navy jersey, light blue pants, navy socks that would look far better because the colors wouldn't be so bottom heavy. They'd be more spread out.

I prefer this as well but there are some exceptions for me

[mad43dog]

[ThunderCeltic]

It would have been intersting if teams started to do monochrome pre 21st century. I'd love seeing the 90's era Jets with all Kelly Green, etc.

[beast3]

After seeing the Browns all brown look, I say it's the worst of all-time

[wonderbread]

After seeing the Browns all brown look, I say it's the worst of all-time

only thing that would have made it worse is brown helmets

[ESTONES6]

The brown on brown wasn't terrible. The brown on brown with brown socks made it terrible. If they would have had the white socks on that they wear with the white uniforms, it wouldnt have been as bad. Plus, the pants needed a strip on them.

[BBTV]

The brown on brown wasn't terrible. The brown on brown with brown socks made it terrible. If they would have had the white socks on that they wear with the white uniforms, it wouldnt have been as bad. Plus, the pants needed a strip on them.

I agree with this. It's really not bad - if the pants had striping like the jerseys, and the socks were white. Just need something to break up all the brown.

Note - this only "works" IMO because their shade of brown is so dark that the materials match pretty well. If they used a proper shade of brown, it may not match as well. FWIW, I would like them to lighten up the brown a bit.

[Trapper John]

I dislike them all but to be fully monochrome I think the helmet needs to be in line also. Just my opinion.

[BBTV]

I dislike them all but to be fully monochrome I think the helmet needs to be in line also. Just my opinion.

"we" have our own lexicon in the uni-verse. Not everything is literal.

[dsaline97]

I'd think that white socks would look worse. It would look out of place because the color of the helmet is orange, not white. If they went with different colored socks, I'd go with orange (if they had them). What makes it look really bad as is is the lack of a stripe on the pants. The mockup Buc did back in 2007 with the orange-white-orange stripe looks way better than what we saw Thursday.

[ram29jackson]

I like all white in a lot of teams uni's.....heck, I'm a Penn State fan....but it depends on color chosen and balance and look for any other color... I like how Kansas does this with a red helmet

[ram29jackson]

I like NCS uni's

[Lights Out]

I'm not a huge monochrome fan, but I like these looks:

[hawk36]

I don't like monochrome, but have to admit the Seahawks wouldn't look right to me without the all blue at home. I believe they were the first to do a non all white monochrome and thus it's become their signature look.

[Chromatic]

The issue with monochrome imo is execution. Monochrome itself isn't necessarily bad, most teams just execute it poorly.

[seahawk9]

I don't like monochrome, but have to admit the Seahawks wouldn't look right to me without the all blue at home. I believe they were the first to do a non all white monochrome and thus it's become their signature look.

Thats only because that is what your are used to seeing on a consistant basis, may not think that way if they had been wearing the grey pants with blue jerseys all the time.

[Chromatic]

I don't like monochrome, but have to admit the Seahawks wouldn't look right to me without the all blue at home. I believe they were the first to do a non all white monochrome and thus it's become their signature look.

Thats only because that is what your are used to seeing on a consistant basis, may not think that way if they had been wearing the grey pants with blue jerseys all the time.

You could argue that about pretty much any team's identity. I still think Seattle's all blue looks good considering its essentially their schtick.

[seahawk9]

I don't like monochrome, but have to admit the Seahawks wouldn't look right to me without the all blue at home. I believe they were the first to do a non all white monochrome and thus it's become their signature look.

Up until 2002 the Seahawks didn't wear monochrome color uniforms so since I been watching them from the year 1976, all blue uniforms are still hard to accept and look bad to me. Maybe if they had the opportunity and had worn all royal blue unis, I might feel different........uh.............NO

[beast3]

All though I do like the all blue for the Seahawks I like the blue on grey much better