NHL 2018-19

[IceCap]

21 hours ago, ColeJ said:

 

i think we should stop judging uniforms based on how they compare to past looks.

 

if the panthers weren't wearing what they currently wear, they likely wouldn't be wearing the inaugural uniforms either...

 

Exactly. It’s like when people complained about the Marlins’ current look when it doubted, claiming it was wrong to ditch the teal. Completely ignoring the fact that the Marlins hadn’t worn teal to any significant degree for ten years prior. 

[Morgan33]

We should stop judging uniforms based on how they compare to past looks?  Is this just for the Panthers or we including all teams because I'm pretty sure you can't go a day on here without hearing how the Sabres need to go back to the Royal Blue and Gold scheme that hasn't been used full-time in over 20 years.  Or how the Senators should go heritage, barber-pole full-time to honor the silver-seven.

[IceCap]

14 minutes ago, Morgo said:

We should stop judging uniforms based on how they compare to past looks?  Is this just for the Panthers or we including all teams because I'm pretty sure you can't go a day on here without hearing how the Sabres need to go back to the Royal Blue and Gold scheme that hasn't been used full-time in over 20 years.  Or how the Senators should go heritage, barber-pole full-time to honor the silver-seven.

You’re missing the point. 

The Panthers likely wouldn’t be wearing the innagural set had the 2016 redesign not happened. This isn’t based on any subjective opinion regarding that set’s quality. Rather it’s based on the fact that the team didn’t seem interested in going back to it. Their post-Edge decisions never pointed to a desire to return to the innagural look. 

 

The Edge system debuted and they went all-in on navy, with a generic Reebok template. 

 

Then they introduced an alternate that was navy and powder blue. It didn’t even include red! 

 

Their big “the return of red” campaign was just the Edge sweaters recoloured red, minus the apron piping. 

It’s worth noting that despite being a minor change? It was enough of one that it would have qualified as a wholesale change in the eyes of Reebok. Therefore this was a chance to go back to the innagural look, because the recolour and slight change they ended up with was just as much work from a logistics standpoint (phasing out old stock, phasing in new stock, etc...). 

 

Then they chose to go sans-alternate until the latest redesign. 

 

The Panthers have had opportunity after opportunity to bring back the innagural look, either wholesale or in spirit. 

 

The team doesn’t want to, obviously. So why bother saying “the innagural set is better.” Maybe you think so, but aesthetic opinion aside? It’s not a look the team seems interested in embracing. 

 

Contrast that with the Sabres and Sens, who have heavily experimented with older logos and uniform styles. Those two teams are obviously interested in a retro direction. The Panthers are not.  

[andrewharrington]

18 hours ago, Morgo said:

 

Why not?  In 2011 they were still using the inaugural logo and made the decision to go back to red for the first time since 2003.  If they had looked to their past and replaced the awful edge template with their original striping (could do without the triangular yokes), it's likely the new re-brand wouldn't have been necessary.  The Edge implementation ruined their jerseys and instead of simply correcting the mistake, they threw out everything good about their brand.  Anytime you didn't see the jerseys, it held up nicely.  Better than the soccer-shield IMO.


 

 

32 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

You’re missing the point. 

The Panthers likely wouldn’t be wearing the innagural set had the 2016 redesign not happened. This isn’t based on any subjective opinion regarding that set’s quality. Rather it’s based on the fact that the team didn’t seem interested in going back to it. Their post-Edge decisions never pointed to a desire to return to the innagural look. 

 

The Edge system debuted and they went all-in on navy, with a generic Reebok template. 

 

Then they introduced an alternate that was navy and powder blue. It didn’t even include red! 

 

Their big “the return of red” campaign was just the Edge sweaters recoloured red, minus the apron piping. 

It’s worth noting that despite being a minor change? It was enough of one that it would have qualified as a wholesale change in the eyes of Reebok. Therefore this was a chance to go back to the innagural look, because the recolour and slight change they ended up with was just as much work from a logistics standpoint (phasing out old stock, phasing in new stock, etc...). 

 

Then they chose to go sans-alternate until the latest redesign. 

 

The Panthers have had opportunity after opportunity to bring back the innagural look, either wholesale or in spirit. 

 

The team doesn’t want to, obviously. So why bother saying “the innagural set is better.” Maybe you think so, but aesthetic opinion aside? It’s not a look the team seems interested in embracing. 

 

Contrast that with the Sabres and Sens, who have heavily experimented with older logos and uniform styles. Those two teams are obviously interested in a retro direction. The Panthers are not.  

 

Exactly. Unless your brand is heritage-based or there’s something truly iconic you can return to (like Boston’s return to its successsful late-1960s/early-1970s look or Ottawa’s recent dabbling into the signature visual of one of hockey’s most iconic early teams), no team wants to be perceived as going backward. It’s tough to pull off a “historical” look when your franchise is that young. It doesn’t mean you couldn’t adapt an old look into something suitable for today, but the designs from that era simply weren’t very timeless.

[ColeJ]

1 hour ago, Morgo said:

We should stop judging uniforms based on how they compare to past looks?  Is this just for the Panthers or we including all teams because I'm pretty sure you can't go a day on here without hearing how the Sabres need to go back to the Royal Blue and Gold scheme that hasn't been used full-time in over 20 years.  Or how the Senators should go heritage, barber-pole full-time to honor the silver-seven.

 

you really have a hair trigger, man. relax.

 

one of my biggest gripes with this community is that everyone starts to develop a me-versus-the-world mentality. this is a diverse community with a lot of different tastes, so you're going to find at least one person that has polar opposite views as you on a specific team's identity. too many people are too quick to aggregate all of those different views into a single blanket opinion about everyone in the community. just because SOME people want the sabres in royal and yellow, and the senators in barberpole doesn't mean EVERYONE wants that, or wants it for the reasons you're projecting onto them. too many people say things like "well i like this, but you all want something dumb." there's very little you're going to find a consensus on here. it isn't healthy to project onto everyone else.

 

for instance, i don't think the senators should necessarily wear barber pole. if they do it, and it looks good, i'll support it... but i don't want a straight up throwback to the turn of the century. that wouldn't make a lot of sense. i personally think they should wear the 2D profile logo with a black sweater with red and white stripes. maybe some allusions to barberpole on the striping pattern. certainly not a direct clone of something they've worn previously. the brand should evolve, because they've never worn anything that is untouchable.

 

the sabres should wear royal and yellow simply because navy, grey, and yellow is an ugly color scheme, with an ugly version of their logo. if they'd ALWAYS worn it, i'd still think it was ugly, and should be brighter. so sue me. some people here want them back in black and red.

 

my point was that the panthers moved on from the inaugural sweaters that we all love. would i be upset if they brought them back? heck no. they're nice. that's all i want is for teams to wear something nice, and the inaugural set IS nice. where our conversation gets derailed is that i also think their current uniforms are nice. i'm not going to hold it against them that they aren't straight up 1996 throwbacks. if it's nice, it's nice. both sets are nice, so i'm not going to lose sleep over it. know what i mean?

 

as nice as the inaugural panthers set is, it isn't like the red wings or canadiens sweaters. it isn't untouchable. it isn't iconic. it's just a nice sweater for team that is basically irrelevant. i don't care what they wear, as long as it looks good. that's why i'm on board with the current sweaters and hated those double-blue alternates they tried. i also hated those edge-piping nightmares.

[IceCap]

3 minutes ago, ColeJ said:

you really have a hair trigger, man. relax.

 

one of my biggest gripes with this community is that everyone starts to develop a me-versus-the-world mentality. this is a diverse community with a lot of different tastes, so you're going to find at least one person that has polar opposite views as you on a specific team's identity. too many people are too quick to aggregate all of those different views into a single blanket opinion about everyone in the community. just because SOME people want the sabres in royal and yellow, and the senators in barberpole doesn't mean EVERYONE wants that, or wants it for the reasons you're projecting onto them. too many people say things like "well i like this, but you all want something dumb." there's very little you're going to find a consensus on here. it isn't healthy to project onto everyone else.

A-bloody-men. 

[The_Admiral]

6 hours ago, Morgo said:

I'd like it better if they just dropped the text all-together or went exclusively with the version that says Florida.  The logo already depicts a panther so spelling it out isn't necessary.

 

Yeah, I'd rank my preferences as no text, all text, just Florida. 

[Morgan33]

 

2 hours ago, ColeJ said:

you really have a hair trigger, man. relax.

2 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

Exactly. Unless your brand is heritage-based or there’s something truly iconic you can return to (like Boston’s return to its successsful late-1960s/early-1970s look or Ottawa’s recent dabbling into the signature visual of one of hockey’s most iconic early teams), no team wants to be perceived as going backward. It’s tough to pull off a “historical” look when your franchise is that young. It doesn’t mean you couldn’t adapt an old look into something suitable for today, but the designs from that era simply weren’t very timeless.

 

If I have a hair trigger it's because of the sentiment outlined here.  You constantly see posts in favor of a team throwing back to an older look to honor their history yet the second a team post-1994 is brought up, those same people do a complete 180 and now go as far as to say that they "we shouldn't judge their uniforms compared to past looks."  Why?  Why is it perfectly acceptable to judge the Sabres current look (which is nice despite it flaws) against their original set but you can't do the same for the Panthers?  Because of the underlying sentiment on these boards that everything pre-1990's is good and everything post-1990's is bad.
 

3 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

You’re missing the point. 

The Panthers likely wouldn’t be wearing the innagural set had the 2016 redesign not happened. This isn’t based on any subjective opinion regarding that set’s quality. Rather it’s based on the fact that the team didn’t seem interested in going back to it. Their post-Edge decisions never pointed to a desire to return to the innagural look. 

 

The Edge system debuted and they went all-in on navy, with a generic Reebok template. 

 

Then they introduced an alternate that was navy and powder blue. It didn’t even include red! 

 

Their big “the return of red” campaign was just the Edge sweaters recoloured red, minus the apron piping. 

It’s worth noting that despite being a minor change? It was enough of one that it would have qualified as a wholesale change in the eyes of Reebok. Therefore this was a chance to go back to the innagural look, because the recolour and slight change they ended up with was just as much work from a logistics standpoint (phasing out old stock, phasing in new stock, etc...). 

 

Then they chose to go sans-alternate until the latest redesign. 

 

The Panthers have had opportunity after opportunity to bring back the innagural look, either wholesale or in spirit. 

 

The team doesn’t want to, obviously. So why bother saying “the innagural set is better.” Maybe you think so, but aesthetic opinion aside? It’s not a look the team seems interested in embracing. 

 

Contrast that with the Sabres and Sens, who have heavily experimented with older logos and uniform styles. Those two teams are obviously interested in a retro direction. The Panthers are not.  

 

The Edge system was on the horizon and the Sabres went with Navy, Silver and Yellow on a generic Reebok template.

The backlash from those jerseys was so severe that they went with a Royal Blue alternate to pacify the fan-base. 

With the implementation of the Edge System, they had a chance to go Royal blue but carried over their existing design and ditched royal all-together.

They had another chance to bring back Royal blue when they salted the slug but instead chose a navy and silver trimmed version of that look.

They had yet another chance to go with Royal blue with the implementation of the Adizero template but once again, the previous design remains.

The Sabres have had opportunity after opportunity to bring back the inaugural look and aside from a few one-off outdoor jerseys, the team clearly doesn't want to.

 

In summation, there is zero difference between the direction of those two teams so to assert that one should be exempt from having their jerseys compared to past looks is a hypocritical way of avoiding the underlying sentiment on these boards: the Panthers original look should not even be considered because it's from the 1990's.

 

[IceCap]

28 minutes ago, Morgo said:

In summation, there is zero difference between the direction of those two teams so to assert that one should be exempt from having their jerseys compared to past looks is a hypocritical way of avoiding the underlying sentiment on these boards: the Panthers original look should not even be considered because it's from the 1990's.

I've already said it, but I'll say it again. The difference is that the Sabres are obviously interested in experimenting with the old royal blue and gold look. The Panthers are obviously choosing not to reference their inaugural uniforms.

And since you've completely missed the point? I'll say that again too. It has nothing to do with what andrewharrington, ColeJ, McCarthy, Gothimite, the admiral, you, me, or anyone else thinks about either older look. It doesn't matter if one's from the 70s while another's from the 90s. It doesn't matter which one any single CCSLC user thinks is better.

The only thing that matters, in regards to this discussion, is the fact that the team that is the Florida Panthers doesn't want to reference the 90s look, for whatever reason. The aesthetics of that identity don't matter because whatever anyone may think of them? The team is simply not interested in referencing it. Buffalo, however, is interested in a retro-ish identity. So people avoid comparisons with the latter while embracing them with the former. It's not a "bias" like you're asserting. Just pointing out that the team in question, the Panthers, has no interest in the look you're championing.

[ColeJ]

6 hours ago, Morgo said:

If I have a hair trigger it's because of the sentiment outlined here.  You constantly see posts in favor of a team throwing back to an older look to honor their history yet the second a team post-1994 is brought up, those same people do a complete 180 and now go as far as to say that they "we shouldn't judge their uniforms compared to past looks."

 

but do you not see my point? that you literally either just attributed MY quote about judging uniforms to the entire community, or somehow attributed a distaste for 90's hockey fashion to me?

 

CCSLC isn't a single person. every post you read isn't a single entity contradicting itself.

 

you know my tastes in uniforms. we usually actually AGREE on uniforms. especially 90's designs... it's just that in the instance of the panthers uniforms, i don't see why we should hate on the current look, which i actually like.

 

that's why i'm talking about your hair trigger and propensity for blanket statements. i'm sure if you read every thread here assuming there are only 2 people talking (Morgo and "CCSLC"), it must seem like that CCSLC character is infuriatingly inconsistent... but that's because we're actually a lot of different people from a lot of different demographics with a lot of different opinions.

 

"those same people do a complete 180 and now go as far as to say"

 

PEOPLE didn't say that. i did. did i do a 180?

 

am i crazy?

[Morgan33]

12 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

The Panthers are obviously choosing not to reference their inaugural uniforms.

The inaugural look is referenced in their current uniforms with the colour scheme, updated leaping panther and even the new primary which depicts a panther in a style similar to their first logo.  The press release even admits that.  It's not like the case of the Marlins who eliminated their primary colour and went with a completely different look.

 

And how do you know what the team plans to do with their upcoming alternate jersey?  For all you know, the updated leaping panther could be appearing on that inaugural striping pattern or something similar which is frankly what the team should have done to begin with. 
 

Quote

 

And since you've completely missed the point? I'll say that again too. It has nothing to do with what andrewharrington, ColeJ, McCarthy, Gothimite, the admiral, you, me, or anyone else thinks about either older look. It doesn't matter if one's from the 70s while another's from the 90s. It doesn't matter which one any single CCSLC user thinks is better.

The only thing that matters, in regards to this discussion, is the fact that the team that is the Florida Panthers doesn't want to reference the 90s look, for whatever reason.

 

 

We weren't talking about what the team was planning to do.  You and Cole J said that comparing the current jerseys to the inaugural ones is not a discussion that should even happen on these boards while talking about how "diverse" this community is.  Seems more than a little contradictory.  Comparing jerseys to past looks is kind of what we do on here, regardless of what team it is.

 

Quote

The aesthetics of that identity don't matter because whatever anyone may think of them? The team is simply not interested in referencing it.

The fact of the matter is that both the inaugural and current set are primarily red jerseys with navy, gold and white highlights that feature a stylized panther as a primary logo.  The assertion that they can't be compared on a message board for sports aesthetics is ludicrous.
 

Quote

Buffalo, however, is interested in a retro-ish identity. So people avoid comparisons with the latter while embracing them with the former. It's not a "bias" like you're asserting.

Both the Sabres and Panthers current sets reference their inaugural looks yet neither team is interested in bringing them back intact.  This is a perfectly fair comparison.  If the Panthers were a market suited toward outdoor games, I'm sure you'd see the inaugural jerseys used as a one-off in an alumni game at the very least.
 

Quote

Just pointing out that the team in question, the Panthers, has no interest in the look you're championing.

Just like in 1998, the Sabres had no interest in bringing back the blue and gold.  Things change.
 

[andrewharrington]

13 hours ago, Morgo said:

 

 

If I have a hair trigger it's because of the sentiment outlined here.  You constantly see posts in favor of a team throwing back to an older look to honor their history yet the second a team post-1994 is brought up, those same people do a complete 180 and now go as far as to say that they "we shouldn't judge their uniforms compared to past looks."  Why?  Why is it perfectly acceptable to judge the Sabres current look (which is nice despite it flaws) against their original set but you can't do the same for the Panthers?  Because of the underlying sentiment on these boards that everything pre-1990's is good and everything post-1990's is bad.

 

Every statement is not black or white. No one thinks like that. You'll agree sometimes and you'll disagree often. Respectfully explain and support your opinion, then move on. You're rarely going to change anyone's mind, and you won't get much gratification when you do.

 

To your question, I outlined exactly why in my post; it's more difficult to adapt a post-1990s look because the prevailing aesthetic of that time period was, "if it's worth doing, it's worth over-doing," and that simply doesn't work in 2017 because people expect more thought and consideration in the composition of the look.

 

That said, the Panthers had a nice look in the early 1990s, one that probably could be adapted quite well into a full time 2017 look. That look, however, wasn't very groundbreaking, wasn't very progressive, and wasn't very unique. It was a 1980s hockey uniform with an extra color or two in the palette.

 

That also said, they have a really nice look in 2017. The marks are nicer, the uniform is more cleanly composed, more focused with a single gold trim color, and the overall look is more signature (yes, I know Montréal is known for its chest stripe, but the macro-level differences make Florida's stand apart quite satisfactorily).

[Sport]

I like the Panthers new look. Only change I'd make would be to lose the text in the primary and use just the shield. 

[Morgan33]

2 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

To your question, I outlined exactly why in my post; it's more difficult to adapt a post-1990s look because the prevailing aesthetic of that time period was, "if it's worth doing, it's worth over-doing," and that simply doesn't work in 2017 because people expect more thought and consideration in the composition of the look.

 

That's a generalization that applies to many 1990's looks but not the Florida Panthers.

 

Quote

That said, the Panthers had a nice look in the early 1990s, one that probably could be adapted quite well into a full time 2017 look.

 

As you admitted yourself.
 

Quote

That look, however, wasn't very groundbreaking, wasn't very progressive, and wasn't very unique. It was a 1980s hockey uniform with an extra color or two in the palette.

It was more groundbreaking than putting a bad MLS logo on a re-coloured Habs template.  The 80's didn't have uniforms with diagonal stripes, triangular yokes, metallic gold or an even remotely similar colour scheme so I don't how you could come to that conclusion.

[The_Admiral]

The Whalers had diagonal stripes in the '80s, but they went in the other direction.

[Sodboy13]

I need a Chrome extension that turns every Morgo post in this thread into the dril corncob tweet.

[Cosmic]

1 hour ago, Morgo said:

triangular yokes

'85-'89

[ColeJ]

2 hours ago, Morgo said:

The 80's didn't have uniforms with diagonal stripes, triangular yokes, metallic gold or an even remotely similar colour scheme so I don't how you could come to that conclusion.

 

Diagonal stripes: Whalers.

Triangular yokes: Canucks.

Remotely Similar Color Scheme: Rockies.

 

I can't speak to use of metallic threads or metallic twill in the 80s, but I know at least Minnesota used it before Florida, albeit not in the 80s.

[andrewharrington]

15 hours ago, Morgo said:

 

That's a generalization that applies to many 1990's looks but not the Florida Panthers.

 

 

As you admitted yourself.
 

It was more groundbreaking than putting a bad MLS logo on a re-coloured Habs template.  The 80's didn't have uniforms with diagonal stripes, triangular yokes, metallic gold or an even remotely similar colour scheme so I don't how you could come to that conclusion.

 

The Panthers' look was, more or less, a 1980s Whalers/Canucks/Rockies hybrid with a more complex color scheme (metallic gold was only used on the crest, by the way; the uniform used flat athletic gold).

 

Instead of constantly trying to catch people contradicting themselves, put some effort, in good faith, toward digesting and understanding the nuances and reasoning behind what they have to say. The observation that the 1990s were a gaudy-looking time in sports is not an absolute like you seem to think every statement is. It's a trend-based fact that had exceptions, just like any other era. Teams had transitional looks (like the Lightning, Sharks, et al); looks that came in just before the NBA/NHL alternate boom that eventually defined the look of the decade.

 

The point is, they rather successfully dipped their toes into the 1990s aesthetic without going overboard, but it's still difficult to "throw back" to that uniform because it looks dated to its era despite being well done. Old teams look backward because their history has great value. Comparatively, there's not much value in a young franchise's past, so they understandably look forward with the intention of creating their own signature aesthetic.

 

I also never said the current look was groundbreaking, only that their original one wasn't. Chill out and have fun. 

[Sport]

Oh my god the Panthers don't use a recolored Canadiens template. We've been through this before. They share one thing on one side of one jersey and they're different f****** colors and sizes. 

 

You might as well say anybody using red or uses a sleeve stripe is also wearing a Habs template. It's basically the same argument.