New
York Jets:
As
a life-long Jets fan, I suppose I'm partial to their style and look. The
Jets have only had basically 2 styles in their history. In the late 70's,
I was thrilled when they got away from the white helmets and updated their
logo to the "JETS" with a jet plane flying over the top. At some
point they decided to follow the trend in ALL of sports and throw Black
into the scheme. Oy. You'll be hearing me complain about the addition of
the color Black by teams that don't ordinarily have Black in their color
scheme. But then Bill "The Savior" Parcells came to the Jets and
decided to bring back that Namath-era glory and do the "Retro"
thing that we see them sporting today. Big Thumbs Up from me. I love the
look now and dread their next change.
Dark
Jersey: A
White Jersey: A
Helmet: B+ (White helmets are on my crap list)
Logo on helmet: A- (Is it a football shape or just an oval?)
Pants: A
History/Classicness: A (I can't see a current Jet and NOT
think of a Namth-era Jet in his place)
Old vs. New: What's old is now new, or vice-versa. Old Wins.
Miami
Dolphins:
My
hatred for the Dolphins as a franchise is unmatched. But I can't find much
fault in their uniforms. They chose a color when they started and have stuck
with it. Kudos for that. The shades of Teal (Aqua?) have varied thru the
years, but the look remains about the same today as it always did. And as
much as it pains me to say, the Logo is one of the coolest in the league.
Not only does the Dolphin wear a helmet, the helmet has a little "M"
on it. Cool.
Dark
Jersey: A-
White Jersey: A-
Helmet: A- (Again, white, ugh)
Logo on helmet: A+
Pants: A (sometimes dark, sometimes white, I like them
both)
History/Classicness: A (Something to be said for consistency)
Old vs. New: Since there is really nothing "new", this is a wash.
New
England Patriots:
This
one is a bit tougher to call. I used to like the logo of the Patriotic Soldier
in the Center snapping position. Something oddly curious about that. But
the Red shirts and white helmets were not very pleasing to the eye. They
made a serious update a few years back, and it's certainly an improvement.
Going to Silver helmets and Blue shirts is welcome, but I hate the thin-wide-thin
stripes on the shoulders and the under-the-armpit stripes on the sides.
The new logo is cool, but I miss the snapping soldier. Extra points, however,
for the logo on the sleeve, something I wish every team would use.
Dark
Jersey: B-
White Jersey: B-
Helmet: B+
Logo on helmet: B
Pants: A (Blue pants are welcome here)
History/Classicness: D (nothing historical or classic about
this look)
Old vs. New: Toss Up. Put the Snapping Soldier on the Helmet and I'll reconsider.
Buffalo Bills:
Good
lord. Worst uniforms in the NFL? Maybe. And since Seattle is now in the
NFC, Buffalo takes the worst-dressed prize for the AFC. A major overhaul
for 2002, they shouldn't wait for the season to end to burn these things,
Burn Them Now! The Dark jerseys are ok, but what were they thinking with
those white shirts? The Blue is darker than before, making it a darker Blue
than the logo while the numbers keep the lighter shade of blue. Bad. The
big blotch of Blue on the shoulder pads is just disgusting. It forces the
lettering on the backs to be white on a white jersey, another no-no. Throw
in the dreaded armpit stripe and we have reached the nirvana of ugliness.
Dark
Jersey: C
White Jersey: F-
Helmet: B
Logo on helmet: B (I still like the charging Buffalo[?]
or Bill[?])
Pants: B (Blue pants are ok with me with a white jersey)
History/Classicness:
D (only because they kept that logo. It's better than the
OJ/Jack Kemp-era of a Buffalo standing still)
Old vs. New: Puleeze. Old. Hands Down.
AFC North: The Land of Lost
Logos
With
4 teams, and enough room for 8 helmet logos, this division has only 3.
Cincinnati
Bengals:
You can't discuss the Bengals uniforms without also discussing the
Browns. Why? Well, back in 1968, when Paul Brown, recently estranged from
the team that bares his name, became the first head coach of the Bengals,
he decided to raid the Browns of their colors and ugly uniform choices.
He purposely made the Bengals uniforms look similar to those of the Browns.
Bad move. The early days of the Bengals uniforms were very bland. In the
80's, they upgraded to the tiger striped helmet with similar stripes on
the sleeves and pants. While many looked on in disgust, I applauded the
improvement. With the addition recently of the Bengal tiger on the sleeve,
I think the Bengals do the best they can with what they have.
Dark
Jersey: B-
White Jersey: B-
Helmet: C+ (Still, all-in-all, ugly.)
Logo on helmet: C (is that actually a logo?)
Pants: B (Thumbs up for the stripes.)
History/Classicness: B (Just 2 different designs in their
34 years of existence.)
Old vs. New: At least design #2 is better than design #1. New wins here.
Cleveland
Browns:
When a team is named after a color, and it's helmet is NOT that color,
something has gone awry. When I was a young guru-in-training, I wished the
Browns would put a damn logo on that helmet. Anything was better than nothing,
I thought. But what would they put on there? A picture of Paul Brown? A
Brown crayon? Well in this case, Nothing, it seems, is better than Something.
At least they have a nice stripe on there. The rest of the uniform is simple
and basic and in this age of bad fashion (see Buffalo) it's actually quite
welcome in my mind.
Dark
Jersey: B (Could be worse. I actually prefer the Dark
over the White.)
White Jersey: B- (Boring.)
Helmet: C (They're not the Cleveland Oranges, are they?)
Logo on helmet: F
Pants: C (Same pants, home and away.)
History/Classicness: A (Giving credit where it's due,
the Browns of today look like the Browns of the 60's.)
Old vs. New: Another example of what's old is, well, still old.
Pittsburgh
Steelers :
Sometime in the 1940's, the Steelers decided to follow a league-wide
trend and place a logo on their helmets. Unfortunately, for some reason
they had a shortage of the logo stickers and didn't have enough to place
two on each helmet. So they instead put one sticker on each helmet, and
the look has become tradition. Since I'm big on tradition, I accept the
look, as silly as it may seem. In 1971, the went from white pants to yellow,
and haven't changed anything else since. Good for them, I think. For some
teams, I wish they'd change something (anything) over the course
of 30 years, but for some teams, I make an exception. I also like the numbers
on the FRONT of the helmet as well as on the back. You may not have noticed
that those front numbers are not present in the pre-season. Just a guess
that each player must EARN those front numbers by making the roster each
season. A nice touch.
Dark
Jersey: A- (Few uniforms intimidate opponents more than
the Steelers in Black.)
White Jersey: C+ (Few uniforms are uglier than their
White shirt over Yellow pants.)
Helmet: A (Classic. Instantly recognizable.)
Logo on helmet: A (Another classic. Resembling the logo
for STEEL.)
Pants: B+ (I basically prefer colored pants over white,
and the single thick black stripe is nice.)
History/Classicness: A+ (Classic in every sense. They
should be proud.)
Old vs. New: There is no New here, so Old wins again.
Baltimore
Ravens:
While
the Ravens have only been in existence for a few years, they've actually
had one helmet logo change already. Some may recall that in Year One they
had what is now on their sleeve on their helmet. The Raven head with a
"B" in it is a better logo, in my opinion. But let's discuss
color here for a moment. The helmets are Black, right? And their Dark
jersey's are Purple? Blue? Purple, I think. Purple is good, my favorite
color in fact, so that's good. The stripes on the helmet that go only
half-way back are just BAD. And they appear to be blue, but must be purple.
They are totally unnecessary and need to go. The Font of the numbers is
different, so credit them for that. Overall, I can't say anything bad
about them. At least they have more logos on their helmets than anyone
else in their division.
Dark
Jersey: A- (The uncertainty of the color throws me.)
White Jersey: A (I like the 3-D effect of the numbers.)
Helmet: B- (Only because of those damn half-stripes.)
Logo on helmet: A-
Pants: A- (The "B" logo on the pants is a nice
touch.)
History/Classicness: Not in the league long enough to fulfil this grade.
Old vs. New: They have no Old. The New is fine tho
AFC
South: The Mayflower Division
Four
teams with questionable histories in a division with no history. Baltimore
Colts? No, Indianapolis Colts. Houston Oilers? No, Tennessee Titans. Houston
Oilers? No, Houston Texans. Jacksonville Jaguars? Well, yes. With the
Colts as the only team here who existed before 1990, they still manage
to fit right into a division full of teams with Zero uniform changes to
this point in their histories. How odd. Is this a good thing? Read on...
Indianapolis
Colts :
While
the Colts can certainly be vilified for leaving Baltimore in the middle
of the night and helping to usher in the era of teams moving to hopefully
greener pastures, they deserve to be admired for their ability to buck the
fashion trends by forgoing any major uniform change since Johnny U. first
laced up the high-tops. True, in the 80's, they went with Silver pants and
tossed a dash of silver into their white jerseys, but they quickly disposed
of those and have been their traditional selves ever since. The Left side
of my brain says the look is dull and could use an upgrade. But the Right
side says the look is the definition of Classicness, and should remain so
in whatever city they move to next.
Dark
Jersey: B+ [Nothing fancy, but oh so familiar.]
White Jersey: A [With the white pants, the cleanest look
in the league.]
Helmet: A [The Logo, the single blue stripe, the big
blue numbers on the back, the blue facemask, it just works.]
Logo on helmet: A [The horseshoe is great. One of the
first helmet logos in the NFL.]
Pants: B [Please don't show up in Blue pants next year!]
History/Classicness: A+ [Classicness defined.]
Old vs. New: Old, there's no need for a New.
Tennessee
Titans:
I
must admit, I want to hate these uniforms, mostly because of the hideous
light blue color on the shoulder pads. But I don't. Why not? Well, maybe
it's the combination of the blues that makes it not-so-bad. Borrowing from
the old Oilers Blue was a good idea. I really like the extra logo on the
sleeve, and the helmet, even tho it's white, is also OK in my eyes. The
Stripes on the top of the helmet that don't go all the way to the back annoy
me to no end (either you have helmet stripes, or you don't, pick one!),
but the helmet logo is really cool. They've managed to mix the good with
the bad and make it work. The White jerseys with the Blue shoulders need
to go, but I like the blue pants with those white tops.
Dark
Jersey: A- [Dark Blue/Light Blue: Good. Blue on the shoulders:
Bad.]
White Jersey: B+ [Ditch the extra blue on the shoulders,
and I'll consider an A.]
Helmet: B+ [Those damn half-stripes!]
Logo on helmet: A [Thumbs up. Love the flames!]
Pants: A [Can I talk enough about the Dark Blue/Light
Blue combo?]
History/Classicness: No history to speak of here.
Old vs. New: No Old, these have not changed in their short existence.
Jacksonville
Jaguars :
I don't have much to say here.The Black helmet is passe, altho
the logo is pretty cool. Interesting choice of color for the dark jersey,
Teal? Can you say, San Jose Sharks? Ugh. The saving grace for the jersey
is the Jaguar on the sleeve. And the numbers on the white jerseys look
cool too.
Dark
Jersey: C+ [Less than thrilled with the color.]
White Jersey: B [Nothing exciting.]
Helmet: B [At least there's no half-stripe.]
Logo on helmet: B+ [The Jaguar head is cool.]
Pants: B [Again, nothing fancy, but workable.]
History/Classicness: No history.
Old vs. New: We'll see what I like better when they make a change some
day.
Houston
Texans:
The
newest team in the NFL did an OK job in it's first uniform design. When
originally unveiled, the helmets were to be white with the current logo
on them. They changed to dark blue and I can't decide if this is a good
choice or not. I dislike the single shoulder stripe on both the dark and
white jerseys. It looks out of place, and should either go away or grow
wider or maybe invite some other stripes on there to join the single ones.
Rarely do I prefer the white jersey over dark pants to the dark jersey over
white pants, but that's the case here.
Dark
Jersey: B [Could be worse, lose the Red stripe.]
White Jersey: B [Could be better, change the Blue stripe.]
Helmet: A- [Great logo, no silly stripes.]
Logo on helmet: A [Screams Texas, very nice design.]
Pants: A- [Nothing wrong here, I like both the dark and
white versions.]
History/Classicness:
B [They stayed away from anything wacky in the name of
merchandising. Good for them.]
Old vs. New: Better than the old Dallas Texans uniforms.
With
all the division re-alignment, the AFC West has retained a familiar look.
Four teams that have played each other twice a year every year for what
seems like the entire life of the NFL. And with very few uniform changes
in all those years, these teams could recognize each other in the dark.
The Uniform Guru has high praise for all but one of these team's choices
in outfits. Not quite a clean sweep, but three out of four ain't bad.
San
Diego Chargers:
While
it's very hard for me to pick a "favorite" uniform, if pressured,
San Diego might take that Number 1 status. I'll just come out and admit
it, I love the Lightning Bolts. The bolts on the helmet, the bolts on
the shoulders, the bolts on the pants, all wonderful. The numbers outlined
in yellow, terrific. Even the Blue pants with the white tops are cool.
For a few years, they sported yellow pants with the bolt replacing the
typical stripes and I liked those too. The Chargers lead the league in
"Most times their logo appears on their uniforms" with 6, if
that's an actual stat. I don't believe there is anything I would change
about these outfits, except maybe the Blue should be lighter. Back in
the 70's, when they switched from the Powder Blue tops and White helmets,
I was thrilled with the new look. But in recent years they sported a "Throwback"
jersey and I really like those too. Maybe they could go with the Powder
Blue jerseys and change the helmets to the same shade of blue. Could be
ugly, but could be cool. (Note: Watch for another Throwback appearance
in Week 9 vs. the Jets.)
Dark
Jersey: A [Maybe lighten the blue, but keep everything
else.]
White Jersey: A [No complaints.]
Helmet: A [The logo makes the helmet what it is.]
Logo on helmet: A+
Pants: A- [Lose the blue on the white pants and just go
with the bolt.]
History/Classicness: A [Instantly recognizable. The Bolt
has been a major part of the uniform all this time. Don't ever change that.]
Old vs. New: Tough call, actually. Maybe a hybrid of Old/New is what's needed.
Denver
Broncos:
I'm
sorry Bronco fans, but these things turn my stomach. I can't say that
I was ever a big fan of the Orange jerseys that didn't match the Blue
helmets, but it's a far cry better than this "fashion statement"
that has unfortunately spread into the College ranks (see Miami U.). Denver
was the first team to incorporate the horrible underarm stripes on the
jerseys, and also the curvey, don't go all the way to the knee, stripes
on the pants. Throw in the hideous stripe on the helmet and it's 'ugliness'
defined. The helmet logo is the only saving grace with this new look,
but I never had a problem with the old "D" and horse logo. I
also don't like the number font either. And with nothing on the sleeve
except for a Reebok logo, the ugly look is complete. Only Buffalo and
Seattle's new looks keep these from being at the very bottom of my list.
Dark
Jersey: C- [Why must the underarm stripe extend up to a
point on the front of the shirt? Yuck!]
White Jersey: C- [Underarm stripe, enough said.]
Helmet: B- [A stripe of solid thickness extending the entire
helmet would be much better. Or how about no stripe at all?]
Logo on helmet: B [The only thing about these uni's that
I don't hate.]
Pants: D- [Extra points off for starting a trend.]
History/Classicness: F [Nothing historical or classic about
these things.]
Old vs. New: Puleeze! Not that the Old was that great, just that the New
is so bad.
Oakland
Raiders:
It
seems every team in all sports is trying to incorporate Black into their
uniforms. A trend I don't approve of. If you never had black before, don't
add it now because it's "hip". One has to wonder if the overall
success of the Raiders thru the years has helped spur this love affair
with the color black. Along with the Steelers, nobody is more intimidating
in black jerseys than Oakland. I give credit also to the fact that thru
the years, the Raiders have not dared to mess with a good thing. They
moved to Los Angeles, then back to Oakland, and nothing changed. While
I might think that the jerseys are a bit dull with no stripes at all,
that's the way they've always been, so leave it be. Tradition can be a
good thing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Dark
Jersey: B+ [Very plain, but it works.]
White Jersey: B+ [Very plain, but it works.]
Helmet: A [Silver is cool, the single black stripe is all
that's needed, and the logo is one of the best in sports.]
Logo on helmet: A+ [How can you not be frightened by that
menacing pirate with swords behind his head on the black shield? Terrific
logo.]
Pants: B [One set of pants for both white and dark jerseys.
Single black stripe to match the helmet. Silver. All good things.]
History/Classicness: A+ [Another example of "Classicness"
defined.]
Old vs. New: Old IS New here. Change anything and it'll ruin the look.
Kansas
City Chiefs:
I
surprise even myself when I think about how much I like the Chiefs uniforms.
Basically unchanged thru the years, they too, score points for their recognizability.
Red and Yellow is a good color match and they do a good job of mixing
the two. There's just a hint of Black in there too (outline of the logo)
but they have resisted the temptation to use more of that black. Good.
I like the stripeless helmet and the Red pants. I like the numbers outlined
in yellow. And I like the Logo. Tradition can be a good thing.
Dark
Jersey: B+ [No complaints. Actually deserves an A but I'm
in a mood to grade tough.]
White Jersey: A- [One of the few teams where I prefer the
white jersey over the dark ones. Not sure why, I just do.]
Helmet: A [The lack of stripes and the white facemasks
are good touches.]
Logo on helmet: A- [The arrowhead is cool, reminds you
that they are named after Indians. The "KC" is also very cool.]
Pants: B+ [The Red pants are great, but I would prefer
thicker stripes on the White pants.]
History/Classicness:
A [Len Dawson and Otis Taylor can put these on and it's
1969 all over again.]
Old vs. New: Like the Raiders, Old IS New.
Cleveland Browns: