Bmac

NHL 2017-18

Recommended Posts

On 9/10/2017 at 3:51 PM, NoE38 said:

Buffalo's logos look amazing, but for the Rangers, they just look like they were designed by a little kid. To me, it doesn't look like there was any thought put into it.

 

I generally forego thinking when I design logos. Glad you like them!

 

2 hours ago, habsfan1 said:

 

I wish someone would have told this to the designers.

 

Also, the Leafs ditched their traditional multi-layered socks they've been wearing for decades. They need to stop ruining all the classic looks, just for the sake of change.

 

The designers are well aware of hockey’s visual history.

 

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

No, but I think the Bruins' gold socks looked good. *shrug*

 

Except the Bruins' look has evolved. And each evolution since 1934 changed the uniform, but kept the gold socks. I don't feel like posting that many pics, so I'll just leave this for reference.

http://nhluniforms.com/Bruins/Bruins.html

 

The Bruins' look has changed considerably since the gold socks first showed up in 1931, but gold socks were the constant. Save for a two year window. The socks themselves have evolved, but have always remained gold at home. It seems incredibly foolhardy and disrespectful towards the brand and the team's history to just disregard all of that.

 

I understand the sentiment, but you're assuming a new design team just comes in and says, “WTF!? Why don't the socks match the jersey!?”

 

The teams have input on these changes and the requests can even come straight from them.

 

12 minutes ago, Brass said:

 

The elimination of the black outline in the numbers was also a mistake. The numbers look like they don't belong. It honestly looks like another bad Providence Bruins jersey.

 

Definitely disagree with this. The black trim badly muddied up the typography on the home uniform. The nameplate letters filled in at a distance and the number trim made them look fuzzy at the edges. The new ones are much cleaner and crisper, the readability is much better, and the new lettering matches their logo and brand quite nicely now. The numbers also match the shoulder yoke, so they integrate the uniform elements better as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brass    1,606
1 minute ago, andrewharrington said:

Definitely disagree with this. The black trim badly muddied up the typography on the home uniform. The nameplate letters filled in at a distance and the number trim made them look fuzzy at the edges. The new ones are much cleaner and crisper, the readability is much better, and the new lettering matches their logo and brand quite nicely now. The numbers also match the shoulder yoke, so they integrate the uniform elements better as well.

 

Fair enough. I actually really liked the double outline for the letters and numbers. To each their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kaz    665
8 hours ago, B-mer said:

IMG_1745.thumb.JPG.a8cb6cca71b2b2b38349ca93147fe664.JPG

As a fan, I'm not a fan.  The de-emphasis of yellow reminds me of those stupid alts they seem to wear every other game, and the numbers don't look like they even belong with the rest of uniform.  In fact, yellow numbers with white outlines are a tough sell regardless of the uniform.  Overall, pretty steep downgrade considering how little they actually changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brass said:

 

Fair enough. I actually really liked the double outline for the letters and numbers. To each their own.

 

In all fairness, the new numbers (when they were the old numbers) worked much better with the old logo. Honestly, I wish they’d ditch the extra outline on the B and go back to the unique home and road color variations of the logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BringBackTheVet    4,173
2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

No, but I think the Bruins' gold socks looked good. *shrug*

 

Except the Bruins' look has evolved. And each evolution since 1934 changed the uniform, but kept the gold socks. I don't feel like posting that many pics, so I'll just leave this for reference.

http://nhluniforms.com/Bruins/Bruins.html

 

The Bruins' look has changed considerably since the gold socks first showed up in 1931, but gold socks were the constant. Save for a two year window. The socks themselves have evolved, but have always remained gold at home. It seems incredibly foolhardy and disrespectful towards the brand and the team's history to just disregard all of that.

 

according to that site, there were a few years that they wore only white socks.  A google image search confirms it.

 

13061214450275.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ice_Cap    7,595
1 hour ago, andrewharrington said:

I understand the sentiment, but you're assuming a new design team just comes in and says, “WTF!? Why don't the socks match the jersey!?”

 

The teams have input on these changes and the requests can even come straight from them.

I'm not assuming anything. I can go back and check, but I don't think I ever blamed Adidas for the Bruins switching to black socks. I'm well aware that this process is collaborative. I don't know who first floated the idea to change the socks to black. Adidas or the team. Whoever it was? It was a mistake.

 

29 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

according to that site, there were a few years that they wore only white socks.  A google image search confirms it.

Meh. I missed those white sock sets entirely. Even then though? Gold socks first showed up in 1931. They wore them at home for all but four years between then and 2017. 82 out of 86 years in gold socks seems like a sufficiently strong piece of the team's visual history. I don't see any positive to blowing that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CRichardson    699

Knowing Jeremy Jacobs and even knowing that the Bruins' numbers are screen-printed, I wouldn't be surprised if the simplifying of the numbers on the Bruins' jerseys was meant as a cost-saving measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McCarthy    6,620
14 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Sorry, I can't agree. The Bruins wore socks from 1931 to 2017. The Bruins' gold sock look was older than the Detroit Red WIngs' name and logo for crying out loud. It's older than the lace-up collar.

"More clean and consistent" does not mean "good." Plenty of classic uniforms, across all sports, have had inconsistencies here or there. That adds to the charm and uniqueness these looks have. Hell, what are the two most commonly cited "best uniforms in hockey"? The Blackhawks and Canadiens. Both of which have mismatching home and road sets.

 

So yeah, the Bruins look more consistent with black socks, but it doesn't mean they look "better." To me? They look too dark and too drab. The whole look just seems "off." Sure, it's a great look for a team. Just not the Boston Bruins.
 

 

 

My other issue with the new Bruins' socks is how similar they are to the Penguins' (which in my perfect world would not look like that to begin with, they'd better match the jersey striping, but they did have them first). There's two teams in the league who wear yellow and black and they have nearly identical socks. Same for the numbers on the back. Why invite those comparisons if you can avoid it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NYYNYR    146

Canes beat the Rangers in the annual Traverse City tourney a few days ago.

 

Anyone notice that they wore their RBK gear? Did they just not produce enough Adidas jerseys for the prospects tournament?

 

cut.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NYYNYR    146
20 hours ago, B-mer said:

The white jersey benefits a lot from this change. The home though, from a distance looks more like they're wearing blank practice socks and jereys. 

 

There are a fair amount of examples in hockey uniforms where inconsistencies work better. 

Man, the Jackets' white sweater paired with the navy buckets looks quite nice. Not that it means anything. I'm sure it was just easier logistically to bring one set of helmets or something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NYYNYR    146
13 hours ago, B-mer said:

Speaking of gold...

IMG_1747.thumb.JPG.1f811477f844d0b061d5af70da06f17d.JPG

I think there's a lot more good than bad with these overall kits. It's clean and not cluttered, if a touch dull.

 

This jersey can be recuperated fairly easily with maybe a navy yoke with a white outline. You can make the white striping thicker and do white/navy/white. Boom. Instantly you have some cohesion with your new roads and don't have the unpleasant effect of the bottom of a sweater matching the hockey pants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B-mer    340
51 minutes ago, NYYNYR said:

Canes beat the Rangers in the annual Traverse City tourney a few days ago.

 

Anyone notice that they wore their RBK gear? Did they just not produce enough Adidas jerseys for the prospects tournament?

 

cut.png

I've been scoping out the rookie games to get glimpses of most of the Adidas unis, but a few teams stuck with the Reebok stuff for them. Minnesota was funny because for some of their camps they were using really old stuff from the first edge away set. Carolina, Vancouver, and maybe another team used Reebok as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I'm not assuming anything. I can go back and check, but I don't think I ever blamed Adidas for the Bruins switching to black socks. I'm well aware that this process is collaborative. I don't know who first floated the idea to change the socks to black. Adidas or the team. Whoever it was? It was a mistake.

 

Meh. I missed those white sock sets entirely. Even then though? Gold socks first showed up in 1931. They wore them at home for all but four years between then and 2017. 82 out of 86 years in gold socks seems like a sufficiently strong piece of the team's visual history. I don't see any positive to blowing that up.

 

My mistake. When you said:

 

“...It seems incredibly foolhardy and disrespectful towards the brand and the team's history to just disregard all of that.”

 

It made it it sound like you were placing the blame squarely on the licensee, but reading it again, I can see you implied that a team could theoretically be disrespectful toward its own brand and history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
twi    271

The new Arenas throwbacks look nice. 

 

Also, in before "who are the AreTnas?"  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSU151    2,413
43 minutes ago, twi said:

The new Arenas throwbacks look nice. 

 

Also, in before "who are the AreTnas?"  

 

I'm guessing the health company Aetna was originally supposed to be Aretnas, but there probably was a typo on the paperwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ice_Cap    7,595

The Adidas collar work well on a throwback design that originally used a crew-cut collar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shachihoko    56
3 hours ago, B-mer said:

I've been scoping out the rookie games to get glimpses of most of the Adidas unis, but a few teams stuck with the Reebok stuff for them. Minnesota was funny because for some of their camps they were using really old stuff from the first edge away set. Carolina, Vancouver, and maybe another team used Reebok as well. 

 

cut.JPG

 

Calgary and Winnipeg were wearing their new Adidas uniform. Meanwhile, Vancouver and Edmonton were wearing their old Reebok, I"m guessing they are trying to get rid of the extra stocks of the uniforms? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now