NHL 2018-19

[Morgan33]

59 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

It's possible that I'm missing your point but.... Are you saying that the design of a jersey had something to do with a team winning in the playoffs? Call me crazy, but I'm betting the 80's Oilers would have been every bit as good if they had worn white t-shirts that used electrical tape for the names and numbers. Point being, I kinda doubt the jerseys have anything to do with the success - or lack thereof - of a team in the playoffs. 

 

I'm not saying they won because of the jerseys.  I'm saying it wouldn't be a bad idea to use something they've had some success in.

[IceCap]

It’s not like their stint in the original uniforms was all great though. The latter part of the innagural set’s tenure saw them slip into their irrelevance they now inhabit.

 

I mean the last time the Panthers made the playoffs they were wearing the red version of the Edge look. 

 

Besides. It’s not like the innagural look is associated with a Cup championship. The closest they got saw the Avs sweep them *shrug* 

 

We’re not exactly dealing with the bleu, blanc et rouge of Les Canadiens here. It’s a nice look designed for an expansion team that exceeded expectations but never won anything of consequence. 

Nothing more than that. Still good, but hardly a sacred, untouchable identity. 

 

Which goes back to what ColeJ was saying. I like the set in question. I do. I also like the new one though. And seeing how the old one wasn’t something the team felt attached to? Well I won’t hold it against the current look, which is also nice. 

[infrared41]

23 minutes ago, Morgo said:

 

I'm not saying they won because of the jerseys.  I'm saying it wouldn't be a bad idea to use something they've had some success in.

 

Jerseys are not going to have any effect at all on the on-ice success of a hockey team. No offense, but it's really silly think otherwise. I mean, do you really believe the jerseys had anything to do with the last time Florida won a playoff series? Again, no offense, but you might what to try a different argument to support your position because this one is just short of claiming supernatural forces are somehow in play. 

[TheGoldenTriangle]

The Panthers’ current look is pretty good, the colours are nice, I really like the font, and the “Captain” and “Alternate” Panther shoulder patches were pretty cool until we found out that regular “C” and “A” patches were still going to be there. The inaugural look was also pretty good, and the Edge look was fine. When they made the Playoffs in 2016, I liked the Red uniforms, they looked pretty good against the Islanders’ look. 

[Morgan33]

23 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

Jerseys are not going to have any effect at all on the on-ice success of a hockey team. No offense, but it's really silly think otherwise. I mean, do you really believe the jerseys had anything to do with the last time Florida won a playoff series? Again, no offense, but you might what to try a different argument to support your position because this one is just short of claiming supernatural forces are somehow in play. 

 

Again, I wasn't saying the jerseys had anything to do with their unexpected run in 1996.  I'm saying that it wouldn't be a bad idea to remind fans of when the team was relevant, the rats, etc.

[infrared41]

1 hour ago, Morgo said:

 

Again, I wasn't saying the jerseys had anything to do with their unexpected run in 1996.  I'm saying that it wouldn't be a bad idea to remind fans of when the team was relevant, the rats, etc.

 

Do we think they forgot? Seriously though, what is the reasoning behind that? I don't see your point. For example, let's say that the Browns decide go back to their 80's uniforms to remind fans that the team used to be really good in the '80s. That would accomplish what, exactly?  Other than the fact that you prefer the look, what is the point in having the Panthers wear the '96 uniforms?

[andrewharrington]

4 hours ago, Morgo said:

It really hasn't.  Instead of admitting that the statement went against the very nature of diverse opinions on a so called diverse message board, it was justified with two flimsy, strawmen arguments.

 

1. The team wasn't planning on doing it so don't discuss it.

 

2. The team needs to have a heritage-based brand.  As evidenced by the quote below.
 

Why does a 1994 expansion team playing in Florida need to have a heritage based brand?  If you want to talk about strawmen arguments, there's a clear example.  New teams need to carve out their own identity, as evidenced by the stellar job done on the Vegas Golden Knights.
 

What else would you call it?  The underlying message was that only teams of a specific age should be able to look to their past.

 

Definitely *not* suggesting the team needs to have a heritage brand. Quite the opposite, actually.

[IceCap]

3 hours ago, Morgo said:

I'm saying that it wouldn't be a bad idea to remind fans of when the team was relevant, the rats, etc.

The rats were cool, yeah. There's nothing about the rats that tie them to the inaugural look though. There's no reason the Panthers couldn't bring the rats back with their current look, should they make the playoffs with it. There's nothing about the design that prohibits it, nor is there a good reason to tie them to just the original look.

[Jer15]

12 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

Do we think they forgot? Seriously though, what is the reasoning behind that? I don't see your point. For example, let's say that the Browns decide go back to their 80's uniforms to remind fans that the team used to be really good in the '80s. That would accomplish what, exactly?  Other than the fact that you prefer the look, what is the point in having the Panthers wear the '96 uniforms?

 

 

10 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

The rats were cool, yeah. There's nothing about the rats that tie them to the inaugural look though. There's no reason the Panthers couldn't bring the rats back with their current look, should they make the playoffs with it. There's nothing about the design that prohibits it, nor is there a good reason to tie them to just the original look.

 

I think the idea here is simply "it's a heritage look so it's better". At least, that's the impression I'm getting.

But, as the above 2 posts point out, usually there is some type of success (a championship or a prolonged period of time in which the team was winning) tied to a look to make it have that nostalgia and consider it a "heritage look". I don't know if 1 playoff run and throwing some plastic rats on the ice are enough. 

Should the Leafs go back to their first edge uniform set because they made the playoffs once (in a lockout shortened season) in them and people were throwing waffles on the ice for that season? 

12 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

Definitely *not* suggesting the team needs to have a heritage brand. Quite the opposite, actually.

 .....and then there's this point. Even if they could be considered a "heritage look" do they even need one? Maybe not.

Frankly, I think the original Panthers set is the best they've worn and I really don't prefer what they wear now (For some reason, It just seems like it would fit a team from Halifax better to me. Can't explain why. I just do, lol.) That said, I don't believe there is enough positive history behind the originals to suggest that they are a "a heritage look". 

[BBTV]

17 hours ago, Morgo said:

 

Again, I wasn't saying the jerseys had anything to do with their unexpected run in 1996.  I'm saying that it wouldn't be a bad idea to remind fans of when the team was relevant, the rats, etc.

 

That's exactly what throwback nights are for.  Remember the past but live in the present.

[Bmac]

To be fair, the majority of this board is always saying teams should wear uniforms associated with success.

[wildwing64]

22 minutes ago, Bmac said:

To be fair, the majority of this board is always saying teams should wear uniforms associated with success.

 

But then you get teams like the Oilers who bring back their iconic Cup era look only to spend years in "rebuild" mode before changing the uniform again.

[IceCap]

37 minutes ago, Bmac said:

To be fair, the majority of this board is always saying teams should wear uniforms associated with success.

Usually it’s a desire to see a team dress in uniforms associated with a championship. The Panthers have never won a Stanley Cup. 

I’m not sure making one run to the Finals only to be swept is enough to imortalise a uniform. 

[Bmac]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

Usually it’s a desire to see a team dress in uniforms associated with a championship. The Panthers have never won a Stanley Cup. 

I’m not sure making one run to the Finals only to be swept is enough to imortalise a uniform. 

I don't disagree. I just think things are getting a little hypocritical.

 

I used to argue that uniforms are either good or bad based on design alone. Many members of this board argued against me saying success while wearing a uniform was a huge factor in whether it was good or bad. It's a fascinating topic of conversation, actually.

[Gothamite]

9 minutes ago, Bmac said:

I used to argue that uniforms are either good or bad based on design alone. Many members of this board argued against me saying success while wearing a uniform was a huge factor in whether it was good or bad. It's a fascinating topic of conversation, actually.

 

A factor in whether the design was good or bad, or a factor in whether teams should return to a given look?  Those aren't the same thing.

[IceCap]

18 minutes ago, Bmac said:

I don't disagree. I just think things are getting a little hypocritical.

I don’t see it as hypocritical. The Panthers never accomplished anything in their innagural look. 

When people say “they should wear a look they had success in” they mean actual success. The Oilers or Islanders in their dynasty looks, for example. 

 

It’s not hypocritical to hold that position while also pointing out the innagural Panthers set does not have the championship pedigree that would warrant it being immortalised. 

[Bmac]

52 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I don’t see it as hypocritical. The Panthers never accomplished anything in their innagural look. 

When people say “they should wear a look they had success in” they mean actual success. The Oilers or Islanders in their dynasty looks, for example. 

 

It’s not hypocritical to hold that position while also pointing out the innagural Panthers set does not have the championship pedigree that would warrant it being immortalised. 

I suppose my point was more about the concept of success relating to good design and how abstract that is to begin with.

[Bmac]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

A factor in whether the design was good or bad, or a factor in whether teams should return to a given look?  Those aren't the same thing.

This is a great point, and exactly the one I argued about years back on this site. People weren't able to differentiate between the two ideas. Nostalgia plays a significant role in our perception of good design, which creates for situations like the one we have here.

[GFB]

32 minutes ago, Bmac said:

This is a great point, and exactly the one I argued about years back on this site. People weren't able to differentiate between the two ideas. Nostalgia plays a significant role in our perception of good design, which creates for situations like the one we have here.

 

For the common fan, most definitely. But I think that in an environment like this message board, there’s a little more emphasis on the design itself than mostly nostalgia.

 

For example, if the Sharks won the Cup in these uniforms, I doubt many people here would be clamoring for a return to THESE SPECIFIC uniforms:

 

I don’t know many on here who think that’s the penultimate Sharks uniform. Some might go to the inaugural uniforms (myself included), some might pick the late 90s Nike jerseys, and if you like the addition of orange you might prefer the edge uniforms that came before it.

 

One reason there’s a perception of there being a “old uniforms = nostalgia = better jersey” slant here is that the further back you go, the simpler the uniforms get (normally), which makes them harder to screw up. 

[Gothamite]

2 hours ago, Bmac said:

This is a great point, and exactly the one I argued about years back on this site. People weren't able to differentiate between the two ideas. Nostalgia plays a significant role in our perception of good design, which creates for situations like the one we have here.

 

I guess I don’t see what you see - in my experience, the vast majority of the posters here are more than capable of making that distinction.  

 

I myself want the Brewers to adopt their alternates as full-time home uniforms. Not because I think they’re a great design in their own right, but mostly because I recognize that they have unique emotional resonance.  And I don’t think I’m alone in that kind of analysis.