• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

852 Excellent


About BrandMooreArt

  • Rank
    Graphic Artist

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Indiana > Miami

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

38,299 profile views
  1. nfl

    thought the '66 throwbacks looked even better today in the sun than they did last year on Monday Night
  2. is it a white uniform or wolf gray for Oregon? i really wish they'd stop doing shoots/videos in caves so we can actually see the damn thing
  3. i think so. how often do we read on this site a complaint of too many teams looking the same? so when we come across a team doing something to separate themselves, i think that should at least be considered/discussed as being a good thing rather than calling "gimmick!" right away. of course there are instances like the Jags helmet where it's pretty clear what they're doing and how poorly its executed, but the Bills helmet stripe? i think that was a interesting tweak on a traditional stripe element.
  4. so in this group of elements we have 1 thing that is unique to the Bills (ill say the helmet stripe is unique because it is their own stripe) and others that can be classified as trends (at best, if you ask me). so the question i have then is everything that is unique to a team a gimmick? and if so is that even a bad thing? because a gimmick, or "device intended to attract attention" MIGHT BE something most teams should have. and if we classify trends as gimmicks as well, does that include all trends? at one time the Braisher stripe (Packers, Saints, 49ers, Cowboys, Browns) was a trend but today has lived on to become one of the traditional elements of football design. do gimmicks become traditional visual language after X amount of time?
  5. 1. yea pretty easy one here like DC said, its not used anymore so its "retro". if you're speaking to the aesthetic alone, you could say quite a few logos are retro that are still in use as primarys today. and a lot of them are probably younger, yet older looking, than, say the Packers logo. i think its best to go by the date. is it used anymore? no? then, retro. 2. what comes to mind is a time when cartoonists drew logos. a time when technology/production of logos was young and lead to some really poor designs. this isn't well crafted at all, but it's hand drawn style and somewhat whimsical "personality" still makes it lovable. ugly, but lovable. its a dated logo that reminds me of when a team named the Patriots wore a red jersey, one of the very worst sports branding decisions ever. the team was pretty awful save for a few seasons with 1 Super Bowl appearence. as a football fan it makes me smile a bit because its kitsch, but as a designer i hate it. its an awful logo. 3. absolutely it connects me to the time when it was made. the personality and craft quality makes it a perfectly average logo of the 60s - 70s.
  6. my best guess is there was a set for front/back and a set for TV numbers, and somehow digits got switched.
  7. the Seahawks will have played 5 seasons in their current unis by end of this year so they'll have the option. and anyone who has made a change before then (Reebok designs).
  8. i appreciate the history of football as much as the next guy, but my favorite helmet design by far, from the last 100 years is the Riddell Revo Speed. all the facemask options look great too
  9. noticed this right away last night. really love the all white socks for the Cards. those stripes that taper down the leg works so much better this way instead of being bluntly interrupted by the red-topped sock. gives a much better sense of "flow" and "motion" and feels like the right balance of both colors. this really doesn't even feel like a white color rush uni, it just feels right.
  10. im with you. UA/Maryland has just tried to out-Nike Nike since they became the UA flagship school. Nike still sets the trends that everyone follows and it begins with Oregon. over teh past 2 years the nike redesigns have become very simple and timeless even (Colorado, Tennessee, Army, Wake Forest, etc) and this throwback Oregon uniform which we're seeing for the second time now, falls in line with those other rebrands. Nike/Oregon has come out with 2 strong concepts this year with these throwbacks and the duck uniform, while UA, save for Notre Dame which is an obvious one you dont touch much, still tries to scream louder than Nike of 2 years ago; especially with Maryland. Nike is focused on ideas (and ones that last now) while everyone else is seeing the trends they started in 2010 to the very end. Maryland has done some beautiful work, like the airbrushed helmets, but when they're focused on being louder, while Oregon focuses on actual ideas/concepts (mixed with all their primary variations), i wouldn't compare the two too closely. and i can't see at all how "Oregon is running out of ideas" when this is literally a new idea, even if theres a little help from a past uniform/colors
  11. i dont see it as self depreciating or shining any bad light on the team. they're admitting to a mistake (or, admitting their past marketing slogans were terrible) and are now saying "we're cutting the BS and will show you what we're about instead of injecting another stupid slogan into the marketing". how many times do you see a good one anyway? most of them from all teams of all sports are stupid too thats some ballsy, honest stuff if you ask me. and what i expect to see from them now is what i would expect most fans actually want. a more honest and straight forward marketing strategy. does it make you feel better about your team if they lose a game but they're celebrating the 1 goal a player had? they don't have to go around tweeting "well, that sucked. sorry everyone!" but if they can cut some of the nonsense then im interested to see it.
  12. old habits i guess. its a good move though, i really liked this
  13. no, on both
  14. well its a clash set. thats going to either throw people off, or attract them to it. its kind of an "asymmetric color palette". i think navy, black, and yellow trim is a very nice palette.
  15. absolutely love this. prefer the gold helmet like they wore in the spring but black is a nice option too. the black pants and socks gives it a really solid modern "clash" look with the throwback jersey. these things dont tie together in traditional sense but the work together in an unexpected way. its really hints towards a soccer aesthetic more than American football. this is a beautifully badd-ass uniform. can't wait to see it on the field and even if they wear the gold pants, now its a throwback clashing of elements. the pants, jersey, and helmet might look like pieces of a seperate uniform but they all work well together. this overall is still a great uniform because the entire palette of colors and elements (or lack there of really) i dont see Nike/Oregon running out of ideas at all. they've always had consistency with the primary sets, just alternating colors. now we're seeing some different ideas being come into play and it seems like the Webfoots could be another extension here. i could see them coming out one week in the yellow jersey with the green helmet that has the old duck Puddles logo on the sides