Bucs Make Surprise Uni Unveiling

If you can’t see the slideshow above, click here

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who recently released their new helmet, had been slated to unveil their new uniform at a press conference this Wednesday. Instead, as you can see above, they’ve unexpectedly released the new design today.

Further info is available here, and here’s my analysis over on ESPN.

Also, I’ll be participating in a 3pm conference call with Buccaneers Co-Chairman Edward Glazer and Nike Creative Director for Football Todd Van Horne, so we’ll see if anything newsworthy emerges from that. I’ll have a complete recap of everything here on the site tomorrow.

Meanwhile, if you just came to Uni Watch and saw this post at the top of the stack, don’t overlook today’s main post.

More soon. ”” Paul

182 comments to Bucs Make Surprise Uni Unveiling

  • deargodno | March 3, 2014 at 9:32 am |

    This cannot be real

    this is absolutely HIDEOUS. This looks nothing like what an NFL uniform should look like. This is 2nd rate Oregon garbage. How can the NFL allow teams to dress up in these clownsuits

    Just a joke. barfworthy

    • Chicago Shep | March 3, 2014 at 12:01 pm |

      I just woke up… Is it 1994??

      I’m really confused by these uniforms.

  • Alberto | March 3, 2014 at 9:33 am |

    Love them! Nike are doing the NFL a favor. Anyone else hate the awful classic look teams like the Cowboys and Colts have? It’s 2014, not 1970…

    • deargodno | March 3, 2014 at 9:43 am |

      no. everybody loves them and that’s why they sell so well

    • Graf Zeppelin | March 3, 2014 at 10:29 am |

      Snark? I hope?

    • MRB | March 3, 2014 at 10:51 am |

      I’m with Alberto, snark or not. Old designs are just old.

      • andyharry | March 3, 2014 at 11:28 am |

        And good designs are just good, whether they are old or new. This one, for example, is repulsive on almost every level.

      • Graf Zeppelin | March 3, 2014 at 11:41 am |

        Maybe. But do you find this more aesthetically pleasing than this?

        • Attila Szendrodi | March 3, 2014 at 1:01 pm |

          I hate the Bucs new unis but the new boat is far better.

        • Graf Zeppelin | March 3, 2014 at 2:09 pm |

          That’s actually one of the better-looking modern cruise ships. But I’ll take the lines and symmetry of any pre-WWII liner over a modern cruiser any day. :)

        • Winter | March 3, 2014 at 4:21 pm |

          And let’s not get started comparing a Duesenberg to a modern car..

        • Wheels | March 3, 2014 at 4:27 pm |

          Or a Boeing 747 compared to an A380.

      • Graf Zeppelin | March 3, 2014 at 11:49 am |

        …or do this and this depict a more pleasant and inviting place than this and this?

      • Graf Zeppelin | March 3, 2014 at 11:50 am |

        Fixing 3rd link.

  • Les | March 3, 2014 at 9:34 am |

    So far ,so BAD!!! Pity always liked the Bucs previous design : (

  • Mike | March 3, 2014 at 9:37 am |

    I had such high hopes after only a minor logo tweak and these new unis are horrible. worst uniforms ever up there with the la kings burger king jerseys abd I’m a big bucs fan which hurts even more.

  • SquidNinja | March 3, 2014 at 9:39 am |

    First I would like to point out that all of the uniforms dark color is pewter, not black. Second I would like to say that I love this uniform, to all the people saying that it looks awful then you should probably study up on your design techniques. As the league is modernizing so are the jerseys, I’ll take this fresh new look over a solid jersey with a couple stripes any day.

    • TomServaux96 | March 3, 2014 at 9:52 am |

      “to all the people saying that it looks awful then you should probably study up on your design techniques”

      Seeing as one of the mottoes here is “for those who get it,” your argument that those of us who don’t like this uniform “just don’t get it” is actually kind of insulting.

      Modern design or not, this uniform invokes a visceral reaction. To many of us, it is bad. “Modern” and “good” are two different measures.

    • Winter | March 3, 2014 at 10:11 am |

      I have studied design. Doesn’t mean I like this jersey.

    • Graf Zeppelin | March 3, 2014 at 10:32 am |

      [A]ll the people saying that it looks awful then you should probably study up on your design techniques.

      What does one have to do with the other?

      How does a lack of knowledge of or expertise in “design techniques” negate or invalidate an opinion that something “looks awful”?

    • SquidNinja | March 3, 2014 at 10:40 am |

      By design I meant all of the elements of the jersey fit together. The colors and shapes of designs all work. Now if you don’t like the look of the overall jersey then that’s your opinion, but if you were to say that the elements of the jersey look awful together then design wise you would be incorrect. I give my utmost apologies in the fact that I did not mean to offend anyone, so TomServaux96 and others I did not mean to insult anyone.

      • Graf Zeppelin | March 3, 2014 at 11:09 am |

        “[I]f you were to say that the elements of the jersey look awful together then design wise you would be incorrect.

        Again, this makes no sense. A subjective opinion that something “looks awful” or that two or more things “look awful together” cannot be “incorrect.”

        The fact that design elements “fit together” according to some theory or method of design is fine and dandy but has nothing to do with its subjective aesthetic quality. Plenty of things that are perfectly well-designed in an objective sense still look awful, to some people.

      • andyharry | March 3, 2014 at 11:50 am |

        Take a second look. The hard angles and stencil cuts in the numerals in no way fit with the flowing curves of the flag and the skull illustration. The tiny outlines on the logo and numerals do not fit with the solid blocks of color seen elsewhere on the uniform.

        At best, this is a quick hit of trendy, aggressive, of-the-moment design. This is not work that grows the Buccaneers’ present brand in any way, nor is it design that enhances the future of the Buccaneers’ brand in any way, because people will grow tired of it and it will be out of date in a few years (it already is out of date, if you ask me). Run it through the fundamental principles of design or Dieter Rams’ ten principles for good design (or any other similar list), and the conclusion is the same; this is not strong design.

        I would also appreciate it if you would avoid insulting my (and others’) knowledge of “design techniques” in the future. I am a professional in this industry and have the ability and common sense to produce much better work than what is seen here, and I know there are others in the same boat.

        • SquidNinja | March 3, 2014 at 4:29 pm |

          andyharry I offer a sincere apology if I offended you, I will admit completely that you are much more informed and knowledgeable in this subject than I am as you are a professional and I am a high school student. I also admit that I should not have even brought forth the subject of design as I need to be more informed in it to put forward arguments. I should not have bashed anyone’s opinion for not liking this uniform design, I was only overwhelmed because it is my dream to design jerseys as a career, and I was becoming flustered towards all the negative comments on the type of jersey style that I myself love to create.

    • Jeff | March 3, 2014 at 10:50 am |

      Just because it follows certain principles, does not mean that it was successfully implemented. In this case, it was not. In fact, this may be uglier than Jacksonville, which the design pundits also defended…

      Who signs off on this garbage anyway? Looks like the XFL is making a comeback…

    • Glen | March 3, 2014 at 1:03 pm |

      I like that they used one of the oldest jersey template designs (yoke) as a base to start from. If they used pretty much any other number design, it would be a very acceptable jersey.

      Those numbers though, I think they ruin the entire template.

    • ScottyM | March 3, 2014 at 2:11 pm |

      Nike is definitely hard at work these days! The question postulated before Nike took over was “how will this impact the NFL designs” … we have our answer. Loud and clear with Minn, Seattle, Miami and now Tampa.

      It’s hard to understand why they’d choose that numeral font? If it’s not “dated” today… it will be in just a few years.

      • feck | March 4, 2014 at 6:24 am |

        the difference is that Minn’s new uni is quite nice. especially compared to what just preceded it. Some don’t like their number fonts, (I do) but at least they TOTALLY fit the whole Viking theme. These Bucs unis are like Seattle’s, which are awful, but WAY worse

  • deargodno | March 3, 2014 at 9:42 am |

    My clock radio called. It wants its numbers font back

    • Terry Proctor | March 3, 2014 at 11:55 am |

      My sentiments exactly.

    • Tony Kellogg | March 3, 2014 at 4:51 pm |


  • Tape | March 3, 2014 at 9:43 am |

    haha wow. barf.

    Also, from the Bucs’ release: “The base uniform color has been energized with richer pewter”. Where? I don’t see any pewter at all.

  • jrod3737 | March 3, 2014 at 9:51 am |

    I think I threw up in my mouth a little. Dear gawd!

  • Phil Beader | March 3, 2014 at 9:51 am |

    I like newer styles of uniforms, I don’t think teams should be locked into the seventies, two teams I think do a terrible job with uniforms are the NY Giants and Cleveland Browns, between their home, away, and alternate jerseys they each have three different stripe patterns, they aren’t even consistent.

    That being said, if only they’d change the horrible number font, these uniforms would be nice, they have a classic look, totally in the opposite direction of the Seahawks Nike design.

    • andyharry | March 3, 2014 at 4:13 pm |

      Well, the Browns only have two jerseys, and they both feature the same stripes.

      The Giants also only have two jerseys, and while they are both wildly different from one another, they never wear both of them at the same time, and each uniform looks good on its own. I’d even argue that the difference between the two jerseys is what sets the Giants apart from other teams. It makes them more interesting, sartorially speaking. If the two jerseys were the same, the Giants would be pretty much just like everyone else, at least in terms of how their uniforms relate to one another.

  • John | March 3, 2014 at 9:51 am |

    The pants, socks, and shoulders are all pewter; same as the helmet. If you see black, you need to calibrate your monitor settings…

    • Tape | March 3, 2014 at 12:56 pm |

      I assure you that my monitor settings are calibrated. It looks extremely black in this photo.

  • JD | March 3, 2014 at 9:52 am |

    Evidently “richer pewter” means “really dark pewter.” Kind of like how every team with royal blue in their uniforms changed it to navy in the late 90s. Because dark colors are menacing, you guys.

    • Alec | March 3, 2014 at 2:12 pm |

      I had a conversation with Our host a while back about Royal Blue. At some point what is considered royal blue in the early 80’s was a slightly darker tone, then around 86 it seemed to turn into it’s current look. Or maybe it was the brown acid.

  • Conor | March 3, 2014 at 9:54 am |

    Is that some reflective “3M” material used on the numbers? I’m not a huge fan of that typeface, but the ‘flashy’ look is something we haven’t seen much of on-field.

  • Larry | March 3, 2014 at 9:55 am |

    I dig the color combo and the jersy template itself, but man does this need a less ridiculous font.

  • jrod3737 | March 3, 2014 at 9:56 am |

    Insert snooze button jokes.

  • Gio | March 3, 2014 at 9:57 am |

    Looks like it would be more appropriate for the Browns than the Bucs…

  • JD | March 3, 2014 at 9:58 am |

    This isn’t my work, but I got a chuckle:

    • Tony C. | March 3, 2014 at 11:56 am |

      someone please hit the snooze button

    • Taxman | March 3, 2014 at 3:00 pm |

      Mamaw called – need you to reset the VCR again!

  • JonathanL | March 3, 2014 at 9:59 am |

    The font, of course, is terrible.

    I like the inclusion of some orange as a nod to the old colors, but man, you’ve got to be able to do better than that. I get that the Bucs wanted a bolder brand identity, but giant logos and DARK DARK pewter doesn’t seem like a large improvement.

    • Donald Shaffer | March 3, 2014 at 10:25 am |

      I’m really hoping the home jersey is the dark red with pewter yokes. I am not wanting a pewter jersey. The number font and pewter on pewter socks and pants are my biggest complaints.

  • Bernard | March 3, 2014 at 10:04 am |

    Would be WAY better with orange pants.

  • Jeff (not The Jeff) | March 3, 2014 at 10:05 am |

    The short ESPN story had a quote from the team that this was the result of a two year effort.

    Probably should have worked a couple of more years.

  • Whirlwound | March 3, 2014 at 10:07 am |

    Holy crap in a hat, that is fugleeeee…

    I think Conor is on to something though – the jersey is white, but the numbers’ inner stroke is even whiter still. Suggests hi-vis reflective material to me too.

  • dilbert719 | March 3, 2014 at 10:07 am |

    Am I wrong, or does this look like someone spilled some red on the UPS company team’s uniforms? Can’t wait to see what the DHL team has in store for next week’s unveiling.

    UGH. Until now, I had thought the Buffalo Sabres’ thirds were the worst unis in sports. I was WRONG.

  • mike d | March 3, 2014 at 10:09 am |

    I would not be in favor of this at all, but considering these fonts and how strict the NFL can be, I’m surprised the NFL hasn’t gone to a standard league wide font a la the EPL.

  • Ben D | March 3, 2014 at 10:09 am |

    I actually liked the helmet and logo redesign but this? This is just awful. That “richer pewter” looks brown. If this were the new Burger King uniforms, I think they would be okay. Bucaneers? No.

  • Greg | March 3, 2014 at 10:10 am |

    Holy arena football… yeuck

  • DJ | March 3, 2014 at 10:19 am |

    Black socks would be better. Saw the reveal on the TV simulcast of Dan Patrick; it definitely looked pewter.

  • optionshift | March 3, 2014 at 10:22 am |

    Really puts the “pee-yu” in pewter.

    But as a Saints fan, I’m in favor of anything that further humiliates the Bucs. And these are comically bad.

    My only concern is that this outbreak is contagious and might spread through the league. (I think maybe the Bucs caught this nike leprosy from the Jags.)

  • Graf Zeppelin | March 3, 2014 at 10:24 am |

    Ugh. Beyond awful. Another team ruins an excellent look.

    If the Jets ever do this, I’m done.

  • Daniel | March 3, 2014 at 10:28 am |

    I would love to see what this jersey would have looked like with no pewter and just the throw back colors.

  • jesse | March 3, 2014 at 10:28 am |

    Nice calculator number font. Absolute garbage.

  • Ben | March 3, 2014 at 10:31 am |

    Oh wow, Florida might be the worst looking state in football thanks to Tampa Bay and Jacksonville. Miami isn’t great either. Nike is ruining that state.

    • walter | March 3, 2014 at 10:33 am |

      I was thinking the same thing: Nike really hates Florida!

    • TBone | March 3, 2014 at 11:22 am |

      Yeah, I’m expecting the Dolphins to unveil a new purple/black uni with a snarling Dolphin logo soon. That would nicely complete the trifecta.

  • walter | March 3, 2014 at 10:32 am |

    Funny, in retrospect, how the team got so much more mileage out of Bucco Bruce and the creamsicle orange, than they got out of a “tough-looking” image that graced a Super Bowl winner.

    • MRB | March 3, 2014 at 10:57 am |

      In those days, branding wasn’t as big a deal, teams could have a shitty brand and they barely cared

  • Robert S | March 3, 2014 at 10:33 am |

    Wow. Hopefully Tampa Bay plays Jacksonville this year. Or Seattle.

  • Dowd72 | March 3, 2014 at 10:42 am |

    Is it just me or does it look like the white around the numbers is reflective similar to what you see on Nike running gear?

    • Paul Lukas | March 3, 2014 at 10:47 am |

      Yes, there’s a reflective layer on the numbers.

  • newt | March 3, 2014 at 10:47 am |

    the number font looks horrible

  • DenverGregg | March 3, 2014 at 10:47 am |

    So of the two big 1990s Nike NFL projects, the Titans 1999 uniform is the one that is now most influential. Side panels a la the Broncos aren’t showing up as often, but contrast yokes are all over the place, as are highly angular numbering schemes repurposed from mundane settings (MICR for the Titans, an old LED for the Bucs).

    A different recurring trend seems to be the use of pectoral stripes since there isn’t space on the vestigal cap sleeves.

    I think there is going to be chrome finish around the numbers. I think that will look breathtakingly awful.

    NFC south now has the worst uniform and the top contender for second-worst.

    One last pet peeve: if you’re displaying a jersey design that’s using a unique set of numbers, please don’t use a multiple of 11. Show two different numbers. Ideally one that’s customarily more rounded and one that’s usually more angular: 78, 16, 40, 53 are all great exemplars.

  • Steve B. | March 3, 2014 at 10:47 am |

    The sleeves have differing logo. The right has the new pirate ship and the left has the Bucs wordmark. Yet another thing to hate about this set.

  • KT | March 3, 2014 at 10:49 am |

    Look, I’ve been a fan of this team since 0-26, so I have some standing here, Your Honor.

    This is the kind of crap this organization does. They are completely and utterly inept in every way. They’re the worst organization in the history of the league.

    Just….bad. Just terrible. Awful. Jonathan E would be ashamed to wear these things.

    • Steve B. | March 3, 2014 at 11:08 am |

      “This is the kind of crap this organization does. They are completely and utterly inept in every way. They’re the worst organization in the history of the league.”

      I don’t know about the worst. I’m a Skins fan. We’ve seen some serious dysfunction the last 2 decades.

  • MRB | March 3, 2014 at 10:50 am |

    First thoughts: They don’t look like an NFL team. Generally I am pro-futurism in uniform designs (Traditionalism is pure logical folly, in my mind, and it extends to graphic design)

    I like/like+ the shoulder accents, I like the pants panel… but those numbers have to go.

    • Lee | March 3, 2014 at 11:05 am |

      The pants panel is dumb and terribly pointless.


  • biged6464 | March 3, 2014 at 10:53 am |

    Please refrain from any Oregon comparisons, this second rate uni “upgrade” is 10x worse than Oregon’s least appealing uni combo. Hands down.

  • Karim | March 3, 2014 at 10:53 am |

    The numbers on the jersey reminds me of digital alarm clock numbers

  • Ethan | March 3, 2014 at 10:56 am |

    Somewhere in north Florida, all 20 Jacksonville Jaguars fans are breathing a huge sigh of relief.

    • Karim | March 3, 2014 at 3:06 pm |

      That joke neeeever gets old!

  • JTH | March 3, 2014 at 10:56 am |


    Nice capris, though.

  • Lee | March 3, 2014 at 10:57 am |

    Nike continues to TROLL Florida… Woof.

    The NFL just keeps on trying to make it harder and harder to be a football fan, I swear.


    • DenverGregg | March 3, 2014 at 11:01 am |


  • Dumb Guy | March 3, 2014 at 10:59 am |

    Where da chrome facemask at???

    • Paul Lukas | March 3, 2014 at 11:08 am |

      I wondered about that too. According to a team source, it’s still there – just not evident in that one photo.

  • traxel | March 3, 2014 at 11:09 am |

    1. Why do shoulder yokes have to dive straight up into the neck now? I know, it’s a seam, but so what.
    2. Logo WAY too big on helmet (return to old), WAY too dinky on jersey (eliminate). Superfluous on pants.
    3. Rich Pewter = Brown. Call it what it is. I actually like the combo but it is red, orange, and brown. Don’t be embarrassed to admit the truth. Or maybe the Padres should go Pewter.
    4. Leotard socks. When will they learn.
    5. Reflective outline is good for the highway department. Football, no.
    6. Put the 1970’s Cowboys number font on it and it would look MUCH better. Put that font on most unis and they likely would look MUCH better.
    7. The basics of the overall are good. Fix the stupid parts where Nikey tries too hard and it could be nice.

  • Rex | March 3, 2014 at 11:16 am |
  • Graf Zeppelin | March 3, 2014 at 11:20 am |

    I don’t know why goofy numeral fonts bother me so much, and why they only bother me so much on NFL jerseys. Maybe it’s because unlike the other sports, the number is a major design element on the front of the jersey as well as the back (whereas MLB, NHL and NBA teams prominently display logos or wordmarks on the front). The number is almost a logo in itself in the NFL.

    Maybe that’s the reason behind all these funky numerals we’ve been seeing since the mid-90s. (In 1994, every team except the Bears had standard block numerals. Now only 13 teams have them.)

  • Alex Parisi | March 3, 2014 at 11:23 am |

    Nike has a serious problem with number fonts. These alarm-clock digits might be the worst I’ve seen. Are there any designers with any nuanced taste in that department?

  • Eric Romain | March 3, 2014 at 11:23 am |

    What’s with Tampa Bay pro sports teams going with Really awful futuristic number fonts? (Re: 1990s Lightning).

    If you take away the number font, and weird template striping on the pants, it’s not that bad. I’m not really big on chrome face masks either, but whatever.

    I still don’t understand why they went away from the creamsicles, they absolutely owned that color.

  • Anthony Nuccio | March 3, 2014 at 11:33 am |

    My thoughts regarding the new Buccaneers uniforms: http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/9271924.jpg

  • quiet seattle | March 3, 2014 at 11:33 am |

    I look at the photo that accompanies Catch of the Day and I look at this Tampa thing and wonder where things went wrong.

  • FormerDirtDart | March 3, 2014 at 11:34 am |

    Rich Pewter = Charcoal Brown

    • timmy b | March 3, 2014 at 12:41 pm |

      Didn’t Rich Pewter play for the Jets back in the 70’s? Or was that Rich Caster??

  • Eltee of DC | March 3, 2014 at 11:35 am |

    Nike and the NFL and it’s fascisnista design teams are concocting new designs for a different audience then us aesthetes. We all know that, right? So what’s going on here?

    They aren’t interested in things like tradition – unless they can emblazon it across a pants leg, or style – if making the logo bigger equates to bigger sales (here’s a bit of free advice – it doesn’t) is your definition of style.

    They do this in the vain hope mantra of increasing sales, because the formula of increasing wins=increasing sales is much more difficult to achieve than say… holding a city hostage unless a new stadium is built with taxpayer money.

    The NFell kind of visual makeover shows two things… One is the illusion that an ownership group is engaged in the team success, new vision, et al. (in this case it appears they are engaged to marry monkeys with crayons) and Deau – a fans short attention span is limited only to the new shiny, temporary things (see christmas gifts) that cover up the awfulness of the teams record, in short, a doubling down on fail.

    If one is going to fail, you might as well look stoopid doing it.

    To quote the Waco Kid in the epic Blazing Saddles…

    “These are simple people. The common clay of the new west.

    You know, morons,”

  • Hodges14 | March 3, 2014 at 11:35 am |

    I agree that the uni is awful, but it could have been a much better one if certain things were changed:

    1. The numbers, obviously. Instead of this digital clock font, why not use the totally gothic number font they had on practice jerseys? If you need reference type in Jeff Garcia buccaneers practice in Google
    2. Stop trying to honor the past with color accents. The creamsicle era was awful, and unless you’re hyper delusional, don’t deny it,
    3. Go back to the lighter pewter instead of the quasi-black pewter yecch.
    4. Smaller helmet logo, please. Unless the designer was compensating for something, it really shouldn’t go without saying that big = stupid.

    • Giancarlo | March 3, 2014 at 12:14 pm |

      In other words, it could have been a great design if they had not done almost everything that they did.

      • Graf Zeppelin | March 3, 2014 at 12:22 pm |

        Or, it could have been a great design if they had simply left it the way it was.

        • timmy b | March 3, 2014 at 12:43 pm |

          ^This x 10,000.^

          There was never a need for a change.

    • Tape | March 3, 2014 at 1:02 pm |

      I guess I’m hyper-delusional then. The red/pewter look (as originally stated, not this new insane redesign) is actually pretty good, but red? There’s plenty of red in the league. The creamsicle look was unique and not nearly as bad as everyone always says it is. (In fact, it’s quite good. Better than the red and pewter, in this commentator’s opinion.)

      • hodges14 | March 3, 2014 at 1:33 pm |

        Tape, When I think of the 1997-2013 Buccaneers, I think menacing, swashbuckling… scary, like Long John Silver, Davy Jones, and Blackbeard. When I think of the Buccaneers in creamsicle, I think of Captain Morgan (and not in a good way), Captain Jack Sparrow, (the nut bag, not the swashbuckler,) and Perez Hilton in a pirate outfit.

        And when I think of the 2014 Buccaneers, I think of Treasure Planet. Yes, that crappy Disney ripoff of Treasure Island.

        • andyharry | March 3, 2014 at 4:20 pm |

          I think that’s the point. Why does it have to be scary? To me, wearing a totally unique color scheme that fits your region perfectly is greater than becoming another run of the mill, darkened color, aggressive, tough, menacing team.

          Identity 101: it’s better to stand out than blend in. Creamsicle orange and bright red stands out. This blends in.

  • Rob | March 3, 2014 at 11:39 am |

    My first reaction to seeing these new unis (and keep in mind I’m sitting in a Starbucks right now) was an outloud, “Oh Hell No!” My second, more measured, reaction is “Why?” We are talking about grown men wearing these, right? We are talking about the most prestigious football league in the world, right? The Bucs had one of the best unis in the league (even better than Bucco Bruce, IMHO), but now, good God…

  • terriblehuman | March 3, 2014 at 11:42 am |

    I’ve never heard pewter in need of serious polishing referred to as “rich”.

    • FormerDirtDart | March 3, 2014 at 11:48 am |

      “Heavily oxidized pewter” doesn’t sell jerseys or t-shirts

  • Don | March 3, 2014 at 11:55 am |

    I think we see now why they changed to a “richer pewter”. Nike’s selection of fabrics for their pant templates doesn’t include metallic fabrics. (Perhaps they can’t get metallic fabrics that stretch to their specifications?) This is why when teams like the Saints switched to the Nike template, their pants lost their metallic sheen. (The teams that do have a metallic sheened pant aren’t using Nike’s template – Cowboys, Raiders, Patriots, etc. The Bucs used to be in this latter category.)

    So basically if TB was going to change to Nike’s template, they had to do away with their shiny pewter and adapt to a different shade. Unfortunately, I think the matte, darker pewter reads like a dark chocolate brown.

  • NDGoalie | March 3, 2014 at 12:10 pm |

    http://youtu.be/xlA9bNk3b5Q <- my thoughts exactly

  • Phathead | March 3, 2014 at 12:15 pm |

    Ah yes, back in the days when Buccaneers used to sail the world to steal clock radios.

    Seriously, I’m all for change but they just shat on one of the nicest looking uni sets in the league. And how did the league approve those numbers? I predict readability issues…

  • Paul Lukas | March 3, 2014 at 12:15 pm |

    My initial analysis of the new Bucs uni (will be updated when more photos are released this afternoon):

  • Thresh8 | March 3, 2014 at 12:16 pm |

    Those patterns nixed from the Rollerball remake have found a new life.

  • anthony | March 3, 2014 at 12:20 pm |

    Shiver me timbers! That uniform is what my wife be calling a hot mess!

    But seriously, what is wrong with Nike? They unveiled a new uniform for the US Soccer team that is overly simple and then they unveil this??? WOW. What a jumble of design flaws and unneeded color patterns from the unnecessary oversized logo on the helmet to creating yet another signature number font. I feel terrible for the poor Bucs fans. What a disaster.

    • andyharry | March 3, 2014 at 4:22 pm |

      Different design teams for football/American market as opposed to soccer/international market. The soccer design team is Dutch, I believe, which is probably why they do such consistently good work.

  • Ben D | March 3, 2014 at 12:57 pm |

    This is Nike’s way of saying…”See, Jaguars! It was nothing personal, this is just what we do!”

    • RoccoT | March 3, 2014 at 2:37 pm |

      this site needs a ‘like’ button for comments like this one.

    • mmwatkin | March 3, 2014 at 8:31 pm |

      So when Nike took over the NFL contract and the vast majority of teams kept the same look, the thought process around here was, “NFL teams are a corporate entity and values/protects their brand.”

      Then this comes out and now it is, “Look at what Nike has done! They are ruining the NFL!”

      Equal blame has to go to the Bucs on this one. If they told designers to keep it simple, it would be simple. Nike can only get away with what it is allowed to in the NFL.

  • Pedro | March 3, 2014 at 1:01 pm |

    I think Nike is only part of the problem, I’ve always felt that they’ll take things as far as the team will allow them to. I’m sure if US Soccer will allow them they would come up with craziness for the USMNT jerseys, but US Soccer at least lately has gone for simpler designs. I’m sure the Bucs gave them free reign on this one, and like also got the dreaded “player input”….(sigh).

    • terriblehuman | March 3, 2014 at 1:32 pm |

      Though simplicity has been the theme for Nike’s soccer uniforms this time around, and national team uniforms tend to be clean in general.

    • andyharry | March 3, 2014 at 4:23 pm |

      Different design teams for football/American market as opposed to soccer/international market. The soccer design team is Dutch, I believe, which is probably why they do such consistently good work.

  • Judy A | March 3, 2014 at 1:11 pm |

    The only thing that saves this from supplanting Jacksonville as the worst uni in the league is the fact that they don’t have a two-tone helmet. My gosh, this uni is FUGLY. There is nothing about this uni that I would consider an improvement on their old look.

  • Art_Vandalay | March 3, 2014 at 1:14 pm |

    Personally not a fan of the shoulder yoke look for anyone. I don’t like the Titan’s jersey either. But, I could live with this uniform if the number font was something decent and there were orange socks and not the brown ones that match the pants.

    • Art_Vandalay | March 3, 2014 at 1:15 pm |

      Or even red socks. Orange or Red. No Brown.

  • ChrisCampo17 | March 3, 2014 at 1:32 pm |

    The Buccaneers are my favorite NFL team. These new uniforms really piss me off.

  • Glen | March 3, 2014 at 1:36 pm |

    Outside of the numbers and pants swash (actually a pretty apt term for it in both its typography and traditional definitions).

    The more I think about it, I think while brainstorming someone wrote “swashbuckler” (synonym for pirate, buccaneer, etc) on the board and eventually someone fell in love (happens with designs all the time) with making sword swashes appear on the jersey.

  • MJ | March 3, 2014 at 1:46 pm |

    It isn’t new v old for me as some defenders of this claim. There are newer uniforms which are really nice (Texans, Bengals, Broncos, Titans) and some classic older designs (Colts, 49ers). This is crap from any era. It does not look befitting of a $10B/yr enterprise playing a sport at the highest level in the world. It wouldn’t even look appropriate at most major colleges. It’s change for change’s sake and it missed by a lot.

  • Dave Bloomquist | March 3, 2014 at 1:55 pm |

    Although I’m not ready to condemn anything (except for the font) until I see more, I’ve seen the absolutely awful Twitter, Uni-Watch, ESPN and NFL.com reactions. It’s starting to make me think that we might have Niner’s 1-day logo 2.0.

    • Adam N. | March 3, 2014 at 4:02 pm |

      I thought the same thing. An overwhelming majority of the feedback is very loudly against it.

  • Ricko | March 3, 2014 at 2:03 pm |

    I still don’t understand…

    When did NFL teams begin aspiring to look like Arena League teams?

    And more importantly, why?

    (Truth be told, I often wonder if maybe it’s because a lot of people saw ANY GIVEN SUNDAY in kidhood and still think that’s how pro football teams should look.)

  • Marcus | March 3, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
    • DenverGregg | March 3, 2014 at 2:41 pm |

      At least there’s one shot with red-topped socks to break up the leotard effect.

      There are also shots of a d-lineman from behind. The pants stripes make the fashion statement “Hey everybody, look how big my butt is!”

      This whole new uniform could be a great illustration of Sturgeon’s law (90% of everything is crap), but I think that the 10% would be overly generous here. They’re really getting close to looking as bad as the Falcons.

      • Marcus | March 4, 2014 at 7:26 am |

        I don’t worry about the socks so much since the Bucs won’t use their white pants as much as their pewter ones. Otherwise, the pewter socks wouldn’t get much use after the first few games. I don’t like the striping on the pewter pants at all. We haven’t seen the white pants yet, so I hope the striping looks better on them.

    • Mike Edgerly | March 3, 2014 at 2:34 pm |

      I’m as faithful of a Buc fan as there is. I sat through 0-26 and actually cheered for “Schiano Men” toward the end of last season. This is even more of a test than ever. I just can’t look at these unis anymore today.

      • Marcus | March 4, 2014 at 7:31 am |

        Remember that many people didn’t like their last set of uniforms at first, either. Many people love them now. Not to say the exact same thing will happen with the current set, but just giving some historical perspective. I’m also a faithful Buc fan after sitting through the long streak of seasons 10+ losses. Maybe we’re gluttons for punishment! LOL

  • Joseph Gerard | March 3, 2014 at 2:31 pm |

    I liked the new helmet when it came out, because it was a nice subtle update to the logo, a la what the Carolina Panthers did a couple of years ago. However, as even Paul mentioned a few weeks back, I was expecting only “subtle” updates to the uniforms. This is far from subtle.

    Although I do like the shoulder yoke and the increased prominence in orange, the number font I can do without. Probably the 2nd worst number font in the NFL, and a distant second to the clear number one.

  • Jason | March 3, 2014 at 2:35 pm |

    The numbers are not a good design. They seem like that would give refs a hard time and be hard to distinguish in the stands.
    There’s too much pewter for my taste.
    Anyone know if there will be white pants?

  • Darren | March 3, 2014 at 2:36 pm |

    Any word from the team on what happens when two fans wearing a #11 jersey sit next to each other?

    • Adam R. W. | March 3, 2014 at 4:03 pm |

      That’s assuming 2 people will buy these things… and subsequently buy tickets to a game… I’d say that’s unlikely enough that we don’t even need to consider it.

  • Ben D | March 3, 2014 at 2:38 pm |

    I’m sorry, but pewter without the metallic fabric is just brown. And an ugly shade of brown to boot.

  • Thomas J | March 3, 2014 at 2:40 pm |

    Without the shiny material, since Nike has decreed all surfaces will have flat finishes, pewter loses a lot of what made it distinct. I should note that this uniform is almost totally devoid of black, not something I saw coming. It does however have silver-chrome accents, an different annoying trend. Like a lot of designs it just went too far. Use straight block numerals, real pants stripes and shiny material and you have a classic.

  • Ben D | March 3, 2014 at 2:41 pm |

    For every modern, yet understated design (ie the Vikings) they give us two pieces of crap (ie Jags and Bucs)

  • Skycat | March 3, 2014 at 2:42 pm |

    Just checked my calendar and came to the realization that these uniforms were revealed a month and a day too early.

    • Douglas King | March 3, 2014 at 2:52 pm |

      Don’t you mean a 29 days early? (I assume you are making an April Fools joke).

  • Douglas King | March 3, 2014 at 2:51 pm |

    Good News: The Pants are Pewter!

    Bad News: the Yoke is too, and it just doesn’t work very well on the home uniforms (I think it looks alright on the away uniform, but with the home uniform it proves that the Pewter worked best on the pants and the helmet, and it was a good thing that they never put it on the jerseys).

    Also Bad News: Pewter doesn’t look very good on matte fabric, as it looks more like brown than the metal.

    Additionally the font is garbage, the 2’s in my opinion would look good sans the segmentation but the 9 and 3 look bad. Was hoping they would just improve upon their old Training Camp font (Make some of the numbers more legible, throw in an orange outline).

    Nike Strikes again in the bad outlining department: Just like with the Dolphins, and the Jaguars on the black and away jerseys, and countless college teams they opted to put the bright color as the outermost line. I know a lot of people aren’t fans of the 95-08 49ers Uniforms, or even the current Lions jerseys, but one thing they got right was their use of black to make their metallic color pop (though the 49ers should have gone with a simple outline instead of a drop shadow). With the Dolphins they outlined the number in Navy and then Orange, so the Orange feels like an afterthought. With the Jags the outline the number with black (Away jersey), and Teal (Home jersey), and then outlined that in Gold, once again making the gold the afterthought, they managed to get it right on the teal jersey but that may have been a mistake (White is lighter than Gold so the Gold should be what is used to make the white pop).

    The darkest color should be the outermost outline (can you imagine how bad the bills would look if they outlined their numbers in Navy and THEN Red?). I will say that the color arrangement of the numbers does look kinda good on the home jersey, but I feel it would be improved if the black (or is it pewter) outline was the last outline.

    And finally: The sleeve logos are unbalanced: Bucs on one side, a ship on the other.

    • Taxman | March 3, 2014 at 3:16 pm |

      good analysis. Pewter in matte form is just battleship gray, or worse – faded black/brown. My friend’s mom used to wash all his black t-shirts in hot water (to kill the germs!)…and he ended up with dark brownish t-shirts. Not a good look.

    • andyharry | March 3, 2014 at 4:29 pm |

      Well, numbers probably shouldn’t have more than one outline to begin with (there’s little function to be gained there. It usually just decreases legibility and clarity of form. Regardless, there can’t be a hard and fast rule of where the light and dark colors go. Things get stale that way. sometimes it works one way, sometimes it works another, but there’s usually a way to make it work both ways. You just have to pick the one that looks better as a complete package (which is usually a judgment call).

      • Douglas King | March 3, 2014 at 5:21 pm |

        multiple outlines aren’t necessary, but they don’t always affect the legibility. For instance the Bucs old numbers added Orange, which was a nod to the past, and a great splash of color to the design.

        You’re right there aren’t any hard and fast rules about outlines, but in terms of what looks best, black (especially when sporadically used in a color scheme i.e. Lions), should be something that improves the look of the main colors. I think Orange on the outside actually looks good on the home jersey but it looks bad on the away jersey because on the away jersey it becomes an afterthought, whereas it manages to stand out on the home uniform (which is a combination of the red jersey and the reflective/silver outline).

        I think Nike dropped the ball with the Dolphins, and the Jags in terms of the outline arrangement, and that by using brass with the Oregon State Beavers as their 3rd outline they simply muddied up the look (why would you place Bronze right next to Orange?!).

        I’ll agree that sometimes you can have the lighter color on the outside, but the color schemes for the Dolphins, Jags, and now the Bucs don’t lend themselves to that type of arrangement. Basically if your 2 outline colors are both light then you could go with either one on the outside, but when one of the outline colors is a dark color (Black (Lions), Pewter(Bucs), Navy (Dolphins)), I don’t see how it could possibly be deemed to be better to have the lighter color outside the dark, as from a distance you will only see the dark color and not notice the light color just outside (especially when its a bright orange on a white jersey – looking at you Miami).

  • Lord Al | March 3, 2014 at 3:07 pm |

    Love to have the Jets get there uniform get a makeover

  • Dynamic Threads | March 3, 2014 at 3:12 pm |

    Yowza, makes me thankful the Bills made their new uni template BEFORE Nike took over…Otherwise I’m sure it’d have ended up something like this based off their Bledsoe era uni. Of the major Nike overhauls, Vikings, Bucs, Jags, Seahawks this is by and far the worst, but aside from Seattle’s they have all been gastly. And on the topic of throwback/traditional design ala NYG or Colts, well if it ain’t broke…

    • Douglas King | March 3, 2014 at 5:22 pm |

      And you can bet that the numbers would have been outlined in Navy and then Red as opposed to using the navy to make the numbers pop.

  • Gordon | March 3, 2014 at 3:22 pm |

    Now that we’ve seen more photos, it seems the “alarm clock” effect on the number font only appears when there is a right angle in the corner of a numeral.

    Notice the 93 vs the 14. Tree diagonal slashes in the 9, two in the 3, one in the 1, none in the 4.

    So when 99 stands next to 44, well, that’s just gonna add another layer of odd to this very strange redesign.

  • Jason | March 3, 2014 at 3:28 pm |

    Apparently the San Francisco Demons are reemerging from the XFL.

    • brinke | March 3, 2014 at 5:57 pm |

      That’s pretty good. “San Francisco Demons.”

      And somewhere…Bucco Bruce sheds a tear.

  • Wheels | March 3, 2014 at 3:32 pm |

    Just another awful step that’s making me completely lose my passion for sports uniforms.

    • Ricko | March 3, 2014 at 3:43 pm |

      What he said.

    • Stumpman | March 3, 2014 at 3:52 pm |

      I couldn’t agree more!!!!

  • JessF | March 3, 2014 at 3:37 pm |

    Bucs wordmark on shoulder reminds me of 90s Milwaukee Bucks wordmark.

  • Seth | March 3, 2014 at 3:39 pm |

    I like the red jersey way more than the white but the problem I have is that I don’t see anything that screams Tampa to me. Say what you will about the Seahawks and jaguars and dolphins at least they had incorporated aspects of each city or region into the designs. The feathers for the Seahawks, the quasi military badges for the jaguars, and the Art Deco of the dolphins but this has none of that. If you are going to change your brand at least make your brand identify with your city and region. Now I could be wrong and I just don’t see it but to me this is where to uniform fails.

    • Douglas King | March 3, 2014 at 5:41 pm |

      I don’t see the need to shoehorn something related to a city/region whenever you change your uniforms.

      Besides aside from the Large Cuban community in Tampa, what does Tampa has that sets them apart from any other city in the US. Short of throwing a cigar on there there is no real way to pay tribute to that aspect of the community.

      Besides I think its clear based on the lack of major changes to the logo (basically cleaned it up, and added silver), and the playing up of the team’s historical colors shows that they aren’t trying to rebrand, but rather improve their current branding. They added even more Orange to the uniforms, and added Pewter to jersey (a first), and there are no white pants to be seen (as in they won’t be wearing non-pewter pants anymore).

      Also I’m not seeing Art Deco in the Miami uniforms at all, the font used for the Miami Marlins? Yeah, but not the Miami Dolphins; their uniforms certainly don’t resemble any Art Deco structure I’ve ever seen. I think its a stretch to say that the Dolphins accomplished anything on the level that the Seahawks did, or even what the Jags did (I felt the Jags nod to the military wasn’t very well incorporated, It wouldn’t surprise me at all if they designed the uniforms and then the Organization decided they needed to honor the military aspect of the community so they came up with the badge logo/idea).

  • Michael D | March 3, 2014 at 3:43 pm |

    One other point on the numbers. The slashes in the numbers look like they are designed to make the set of numbers seem like they are culled from one modular template. If you look at the “9” you can see what the expected image of the “4” is. However, the 4 does not match the nine at all. It is one thing to flatten off the tops of the two stems but the way that the line cuts to the left after is strikingly different. It should be the same for the 4 and the 9, shouldn’t it?

  • Bromotrifluoromethane | March 3, 2014 at 3:49 pm |

    The new helmet still really sucks. This new font is even worse, as is the “Bucs” on the sleeve. I love the updated ship logo but the updated flag logo and wordmark is a downgrade. The rest of the uniform for me is a wash. I liked the look they just dropped but with some tweaking I can be happy with these as well.
    I did notice in the video listed somewhere above that they had red socks on some players so I hope that happens. I’m also happy to see (at least as of right now) the lack of a set of white pants but I’m sure that doesn’t mean much. Some updates are OK, some are really bad. I’d call it a push leaning slightly towards downgrade.

  • Dumb Guy | March 3, 2014 at 3:50 pm |

    I’m not wild about these costumes at all, but the thing I (and seemingly eveyone) really hate is the number font.

    Where’s the snooze button!

  • Stumpman | March 3, 2014 at 3:51 pm |

    Wow, what a huge step back by Tampa. They would have done MUCH better to simply bring back Bucco Bruce and the creamsickles full time!!!

    These unis look like they should have been in the XFL or arena ball, but definitely not the NFL. If this is what the NFL is coming to, I will find something else to watch.

  • Graf Zeppelin | March 3, 2014 at 3:57 pm |

    These might have been decent if they’d kept the helmet and the numerals the way they were.

    • Adam R. W. | March 3, 2014 at 4:06 pm |

      I agree… But Nike would never make a uniform change without completely messing with everything.

      Because as we know, it doesn’t count as a new uniform if there is anything that’s the same as how it was before.

  • Paul Lukas | March 3, 2014 at 4:16 pm |

    My ESPN asssessment of the Bucs uni set has been updated, based on all the new photos that were released this afternoon:

  • Adam N. | March 3, 2014 at 4:24 pm |

    I try not to argue with the overall direction of uni changes, but I would like to see how this new set looks with a better number font, normal sized helmet logo, and better socks.

    • Douglas King | March 3, 2014 at 6:16 pm |

      With all the innovation that apparel companies are always touting, you would think someone would come up with a way to make light-weight shiny pants.

      Metallic colors should have a sheen to them on uniforms: Georgia Tech should have metallic gold pants, uga should have silver (not light-grey) britches, and Pewter pants should have a metallic look to them, otherwise they are greyish brown).

      • Douglas King | March 3, 2014 at 6:17 pm |

        Woops, forgot to cancel the reply I was going to write, this was supposed to stand alone.

  • Douglas King | March 3, 2014 at 6:19 pm |

    With all the innovation that apparel companies are always touting, you would think someone would come up with a way to make light-weight shiny pants.

    Metallic colors should have a sheen to them on uniforms: Georgia Tech should have metallic gold pants, uga should have silver (not light-grey) britches, and Pewter pants should have a metallic look to them, otherwise they are greyish brown).

  • Kyle Kendall | March 3, 2014 at 7:38 pm |

    Maybe the only post today not relating to the bucs…

    But has anyone here posted about the new sportscenter commercial featuring the new anchor uniforms? Classic. Plays to Paul’s superhero theory.

  • ryan k | March 3, 2014 at 7:40 pm |

    Blame it on Seattle having the best uniform sales in the league since switching to theirnew age gear. It helps that the on field product was better too but everyone hated Seattles unis when unveiled too. Everyone but the people who pay for brash jerseys.

  • Sean M Bush | March 3, 2014 at 7:47 pm |

    Jesus. I didn’t expect it to be this bad. Change for change’s sake. No design flair. No finesse. Just some suits saying “Make us look more ‘modern,’ whatever the Hell that means.” Todd Van Horne is the name of the NIKE tool that came up w/ this clownsuit, BTW. Send him all the hatemail you can. The very freaking LEAST they can do is change the number font, but, I’m afraid that’s not going to go that far to fix these hideously over-designed monstrosities.

  • gene sanny | March 3, 2014 at 8:15 pm |

    i weep for these designers… we are all dumber for having seen this…. may God have mercy on their souls…

  • gtv | March 3, 2014 at 8:16 pm |

    I’ve never liked the pewter and red. The creamsicle originals were way better. Now this. These are worse than the Bills 2002-2010 get ups.

  • Dave Mac | March 3, 2014 at 10:03 pm |

    Seriously, is there any chance that these uniforms can be pulled in the next few days and the Bucs announce they’ll be sticking with the previous scheme? This is absolutely awful.

    • Sean M Bush | March 3, 2014 at 10:57 pm |

      Ha, I am hoping beyond hope, but seriously doubt that will happen.

  • MH Dyson | March 3, 2014 at 10:26 pm |

    Terrible. And there was nothing wrong with their previous uniforms.

  • mikeeedK | March 3, 2014 at 11:01 pm |

    These uni’s make the Packers so much better
    These things belong at the circus (lol)

  • hmich176 | March 4, 2014 at 2:36 am |

    I am not liking the uniforms, though I like the color better than the white.

    I’ll reserve judgment until I see them on the field.

  • feck | March 4, 2014 at 6:29 am |

    as a Tampa resident, and graphic designer/uni nut I am really disappointed in this. GOD AWFUL!! They should have kept it the same, or done something tasteful and timeless like the new Bills unis. Even the Vikes unis are quite nice. This is Seahawks/Jags but way worse.

  • The Jeff | March 4, 2014 at 6:41 am |

    Wow… so much negativity…

    • SquidNinja | March 4, 2014 at 11:00 am |

      I know, I love these jerseys. Actually my new favorite in the league. And I know I’m gonna get alot of hate for this…but I like the number font.