gek_6

Lions New Logo and Uniforms 2017

Recommended Posts

BringBackTheVet    4,172
2 hours ago, Quillz said:

I think they could. They could simply tell Nike that they've chosen to honor their former owner in another way. (Not that Nike would even care, frankly).

 

Oh I just mean would they really request removal of a tribute when requesting a redesign.  I don't think the designer would care either way, just would the team do it considering how it would look to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quillz    224
Just now, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Oh I just mean would they really request removal of a tribute when requesting a redesign.  I don't think the designer would care either way, just would the team do it considering how it would look to the public.

With the right PR, anything is possible. I don't know if such a thing has occurred before, but it wouldn't seem all that different from teams that wear single-season memorial patches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackBolt3    1,116

All I'm gonna say is Jerry Richardson's patch is gonna be a sight to see.*

 

 

*It's gonna be awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheOldRoman    1,099

These are unoffensively mediocre. Far from great, but not terrible. Here are the rankings for the home and road, since that throwback is long-covered and I think all of us born in the 20th century will agree that the dark gray alternates are hot garbage.

 

Helmet - C

The striping pattern is dumb, and it omitting white is awful. They should have used the same B-W-B stripes they used in the Barry Sanders era. Also, the logo was messed up by putting the offset blue outline. I don't care if it matches the crappy stripes. It would have been better to just have a single white outline, like the Sanders era. Silver facemask? Meh. The best look is blue, once again, like Barry wore. It could be worse.

 

Wordmark - C-

Unoffensively awful. It's bad an uninspiring, but not so much that you'll remember how bad it is.

 

Numbers - C+

The font is really bad; matching the wordmark. I disliked the previous font, but this actually makes me miss it. That was at least more thought-out. These are just thin, italicized crap with random points in the corners. The only saving grace, and it's a big one, is that they outlined the numbers in silver on the home and road. I don't care if the silver doesn't always show up against the white from a distance. It is a great detail and it looks better than single color.

 

Jerseys (stripes mostly) - C

The striping pattern appears for a third time. A bit of overkill, and the set would have improve from having different stripes somewhere (like on the helmets and pants). Still, it's a classic striping pattern. It's hurt by the lack of white on the homes, silver on the road, as those colors outlined the stripes on the classic Sanders-era set. Could be worse.

 

Sleeve wordmark/designs - F

The wordmark on the stripes is garbage. Really bad. It's a throwback to the awful '80s designs of slapping a logo on top of stripes. (And no, the Cowboys navy jerseys don't look good. They suck on their own and are a departure from the classic look the team should be wearing. The 49ers of the TO era also looked worse for doing it. Don't @ me.) So, this is a dated, crap practice, brought back because Nike gonna Nike. This is obviously something they want to push, as they put the Buccaneers' wordmark on one sleeve. It looks bad. The WCF logo is awful. If they want to memorialize him, go nuts. Do it in a classy way like the Bears did. However, this logo is the opposite of classy. It's too big, too busy, and messes things up by including white (which they excluded from the stripes and the other sleeve).

The only positives of these elements are that throwing this crap on the sleeves clears up the front of the jerseys. Under collar wordmarks are bad, and adding a big permanent logo on the chest is awful (hi, Chiefs).

 

Gray (silver?) pants - B

The stripes match the helmet, which is standard practice for teams that aren't morons (hi, Saints). However, the stripes are bad for the helmet, and that goes for the pants, as well. However, it looks like these pants are actually metallic silver, rather than the washed out, see-through faint gray pants they wore in recent years. That is enough to move the pants up.

 

Blue pants - D

The stripes decent (previously discussed). However, these are awful for a few reasons. First off, they aren't paired with white or gray socks, they will always look like tights. Even worse, this is going to lead to these being worn with the blue jerseys, which is horrendous. Worse still, they'll probably wear solid blue at home and only wear silver pants on the road. A potentially decent element, but awful in this era.

 

So, these "look like the Lions," but so did the last set. The colors are great. The fonts are awful. There are a few Nike elements that have no place. These aren't terrible, but they could be a lot better. I'd give them an edge over the previous set, but only because of them eliminating black. They would have been much better served to just go fully back to the Sanders set, but they they'd be admitting they made a mistake changing to begin with. And they wouldn't be able to see more jerseys and helmets in a few years when they make another change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
panthers_2012    475
3 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

Cleveland's "AL" disappeared, didn't it?

Yes, after the Haslems took over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
panthers_2012    475
3 hours ago, CLEstones said:

Why do the sleeve stripes look like Duck Tape?

Because duck tape fixes everything!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheOldRoman    1,099
7 hours ago, kimball said:

 

If by meaning going back to the pre-2003 uniforms, then yes go ahead.

 

The Vikings, Dolphins, Browns and Lions all had classic sets they could have gone back to. The Vikings and Lions sets are decent-to-pretty-good, but worse than the old sets. The Dolphins set is bland crap. The Browns are horrendous. Even in the sets that tried to look old (MIN and DET), Nike had to change just enough to let us know that these were Nike presents "NFC North," a Nike production. Directed by Nike and starring Nike.

 

So, the next Bengals set will be better (it would seemingly be impossible to stay as bad). And it very well might be modeled after the Super Bowl set. But it will have an awful font with sublimated stripes, fierce teeth outlining the face on the helmet, and various other head-shakers that do just enough to leave you disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheOldRoman said:

 

The Vikings, Dolphins, Browns and Lions all had classic sets they could have gone back to. The Vikings and Lions sets are decent-to-pretty-good, but worse than the old sets. The Dolphins set is bland crap. The Browns are horrendous. Even in the sets that tried to look old (MIN and DET), Nike had to change just enough to let us know that these were Nike presents "NFC North," a Nike production. Directed by Nike and starring Nike.

 

So, the next Bengals set will be better (it would seemingly be impossible to stay as bad). And it very well might be modeled after the Super Bowl set. But it will have an awful font with sublimated stripes, fierce teeth outlining the face on the helmet, and various other head-shakers that do just enough to leave you disappointed.

 

I would bet my life the Dolphins will eventually be wearing these CWOwmnSUYAQEH0r.jpg fulltime (as well as the white on white and white on teal pants versions) They are wildly popular and even rival fans clamoring for them. The Vikings and Lions did a nice job fixing things, the Browns will too I gather. So will the Eagles. Only natural for the Dolphins to fall in line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gupti    193

Anyone else think it's safe to say that changing back to a full-on copy of an old uniform is simply considered out of the question at this point?

 

While there is a precedent for returning to vintage looks (teams like the Jets, Giants, and 49ers come to mind), those happened earlier in the century (2009 being the latest) BEFORE the height of the era of Twitter, Instagram and rapid image sharing in general. This isn't the 70's where you didn't know about knew uniforms until they hit the field week one and you usually wouldn't care to tell the difference anyway. Uniform unveilings are a huge deal now for people who browse sports news, and if your team's new duds aren't super hot [fire emojis], then your team falls behind in the marketing game.

 

It doesn't make sense from that standpoint to change out your current set for "old," "boring," "been-there/seen-that" unis. The only people who'd be truly satisfied to see an old set make a comeback are we freaks here and a select group of heady loyal fans. Be mindful that there were even some people in the social media-sphere who were DISAPPOINTED that the Vikings changed away from their disgusting old set into their beautiful new one.

 

Uni game is a social media marketing competition between these teams and the only way to keep up is to reveal 21st century uniforms that "sleek and modern," but also have some "vintage flair," because who doesn't just love a little bit of that? Old sets will just stay throwbacks to sell more jerseys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eszcz21    25
17 hours ago, kimball said:

 

If by meaning going back to the pre-2003 uniforms, then yes go ahead.

 

He said that he loved the Bengals previous set before the abomination they wear now. Honestly their current uniforms need a lot of work but just removing the white side panel on the black and orange jerseys would make them a lot better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Proc    44

I've had a week to think on the new uniforms.

 

I like them.

 

I wanted to dislike the wordmark - I don't.  I wanted to dislike the WCF tribute to William Clay Ford.  I don't.  I wanted to dislike the font.  I don't.

 

Its a fresh take using the only 2 colors needed - Honolulu Blue and Silver.

 

I really like the blue pants.  I always thought the lions road uniforms lacked something.  I liked the blue pants in the past and this is a nice update to that.

 

I won't give them an A on it seeing as my "A" grade would've been a simple update of either the Barry Sanders or Billy Sims era uniforms - but I will give this a solid B+ and say it's tastefully done and not some overdone nastiness like the Buccaneers or Jaguars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oldschoolvikings    3,621
8 hours ago, Gupti said:

Anyone else think it's safe to say that changing back to a full-on copy of an old uniform is simply considered out of the question at this point?

 

While there is a precedent for returning to vintage looks (teams like the Jets, Giants, and 49ers come to mind), those happened earlier in the century (2009 being the latest) BEFORE the height of the era of Twitter, Instagram and rapid image sharing in general. This isn't the 70's where you didn't know about knew uniforms until they hit the field week one and you usually wouldn't care to tell the difference anyway. Uniform unveilings are a huge deal now for people who browse sports news, and if your team's new duds aren't super hot [fire emojis], then your team falls behind in the marketing game.

 

It doesn't make sense from that standpoint to change out your current set for "old," "boring," "been-there/seen-that" unis. The only people who'd be truly satisfied to see an old set make a comeback are we freaks here and a select group of heady loyal fans. Be mindful that there were even some people in the social media-sphere who were DISAPPOINTED that the Vikings changed away from their disgusting old set into their beautiful new one.

 

Uni game is a social media marketing competition between these teams and the only way to keep up is to reveal 21st century uniforms that "sleek and modern," but also have some "vintage flair," because who doesn't just love a little bit of that? Old sets will just stay throwbacks to sell more jerseys.

 

Yeah, I'd agree with this.  I feel like, in this current marketing climate, teams just don't feel like they're "getting their moneys worth" if there isn't some sort of buzz around the release.  Since the Nike/NFL marriage, every new uniform has had at least one unique "signature" element, from Seattle's number pattern, to Jacksonville's fade helmet, to Tampa's oversize helmet logo, to Cleveland's pants wordmarks.  In every case I just mentioned, I think these elements are over-designed and forced, but it had the desired effect of giving fans something they'd never seen before.

 

It seems to me, the approach has been to take teams that have been around a while (the Vikings, the Lions) and go with a bit of a new twist on older looks, trying to please the traditionalist fans but still get some social media interest, while with newer teams (the Bucs, Jags, and Seahawks) they can go a little crazy. (Except for Cleveland, an old time traditional team, that for some reason allowed Nike to take a giant steaming dump all over them.)  With this in mind, it's no surprise the Detroit and Minnesota have had, by a huge margin, the most aesthetically successful redesigns since the Nike take over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OnWis97    2,190
1 hour ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Yeah, I'd agree with this.  I feel like, in this current marketing climate, teams just don't feel like they're "getting their moneys worth" if there isn't some sort of buzz around the release.  Since the Nike/NFL marriage, every new uniform has had at least one unique "signature" element, from Seattle's number pattern, to Jacksonville's fade helmet, to Tampa's oversize helmet logo, to Cleveland's pants wordmarks.  In every case I just mentioned, I think these elements are over-designed and forced, but it had the desired effect of giving fans something they'd never seen before.

 

It seems to me, the approach has been to take teams that have been around a while (the Vikings, the Lions) and go with a bit of a new twist on older looks, trying to please the traditionalist fans but still get some social media interest, while with newer teams (the Bucs, Jags, and Seahawks) they can go a little crazy. (Except for Cleveland, an old time traditional team, that for some reason allowed Nike to take a giant steaming dump all over them.)  With this in mind, it's no surprise the Detroit and Minnesota have had, by a huge margin, the most aesthetically successful redesigns since the Nike take over.

Cleveland could be the test of whether "nobody will ever go back to an old look" is 100% true.

 

I tend to agree with the premise; a lot of traditionalists would have been happy to see teams like the Vikings and Lions go back to an older look (or at least something close enough that "normal" fans would think it's the same*).  The Vikings went to the minimal yellow and fairly basic elements with a "Nike flair."  Most traditionalist were just happy to say goodbye to the Reebok-era.  And as you say, there was a buzz. Actually, though, I think there would have been a buzz if they'd gone with the Moss-era or the 1980s (uh, Darin Nelson?)-era uniforms, too.  So to me it's more about "Traditionalists: you should like this.  Everyone: it's a Nike production."  

I think a lot of traditionalists would have been happy to see the Barry Sanders era with the updated logo.  But most of them are just glad the black's gone.  Everyone else, regardless of how they feel, gets to see more Nike.

 

Additionally, say the Lions went back to the Sanders era...some people would probably call Nike "lazy" for not really doing anything original.  A team would really, really have to want to go back for it to happen.

 

Anyway, I would not be totally blown away if the Browns ended up with their traditional uniforms.  It's at least a small part of what everyone clamored for regarding the "Cleveland Deal."  And I think there are a lot of people who think that the Browns should be toned down.  It will be interesting to see.  Will they go all the way back?  Or will they get a closer-to-traditional look with some "Nike" flair in the form of a custom font, serifs, stripes that match the sleeveless template, or some other goofy thing that's just being cooked up in some plucky intern's mind as we speak?

 

*I recall reading facebook comments after the Vikings released their current uniform that they went with a "throwback" look. I don't know whether we should be laughing at those fans or they should be laughing at us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WavePunter    668
11 hours ago, TheOldRoman said:

 

The Vikings, Dolphins, Browns and Lions all had classic sets they could have gone back to. The Vikings and Lions sets are decent-to-pretty-good, but worse than the old sets. The Dolphins set is bland crap. The Browns are horrendous. Even in the sets that tried to look old (MIN and DET), Nike had to change just enough to let us know that these were Nike presents "NFC North," a Nike production. Directed by Nike and starring Nike.

 

So, the next Bengals set will be better (it would seemingly be impossible to stay as bad). And it very well might be modeled after the Super Bowl set. But it will have an awful font with sublimated stripes, fierce teeth outlining the face on the helmet, and various other head-shakers that do just enough to leave you disappointed.

The Browns don't fit with the other 3 here.. They were currently wearing their classic set when they decided to redesign.. If they had gone back to it, there would've been no change, since they've worn essentially the same design for their entire existence.. Though I wouldn't be surprised if they do go back to that look (or at least something similar) as soon as the 5 years is up

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