infrared41's Best and Worst - NFL 2018 Week 9

[Cosmic]

Salty infrared threads this year, all of a sudden! 

[The_Admiral]

I have been summoned to defend the rejected Patriots logo.

 

It has strength and forward motion, which seem like good football team concepts to me. Flying Elvis is just the rejected logo reduced to a little flared brushstroke, which looks passable on helmets but silly everywhere else, lacks heft alongside other NFL logos, and is also needlessly abstract. A Flag Head Man, I can sorta get why that would exist, how a team called the Patriots would arrive at that. But why is this minuteman fading into a point instead? 

 

I tried to combine the two prototypes and update the colors. I think this would look just as good on a helmet as Flying Elvis. It would not have worked on the shoulders of the drop-shadow-italic-number jerseys, but that's a trade I'm willing to make. 

[BBTV]

It’s too square to put on a football helmet. It’s still too wide to scale well. The wave in the top of the flag looks awkward. Maybe if it curved down and to the right, starting at where’s that wave is, it would be passable.  

[The_Admiral]

Yeah, I see what you're talking about with the wave in the flag. Probably just a bad trace. How many years did it take to unearth this logo, anyway? For a long time it was just talked about as "almost Flying Elvis but not."

[Red Wolf]

17 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

I also have a little bit of a thing about logos that depict humans of a specific skin color.  I can't think of any logo that contains a human where the skin color is natural and isn't white*.  Elvis being silver is kinda white, but it's ambiguous enough to be OK.  Unless the team is named for a very specific person/thing (like the Blackhawks**) it should be neutral.  Just my opinion.

 

 

*Cleveland Indians and Chicago Blackhawks being exceptions.  Won't get in to Cleveland here.

**Yes I know they're not directly named after a person, but ultimately it ties back to a Native American.

 

I guess Pierce and Dean Pelton knew what they were doing.

[infrared41]

11 hours ago, Elmos World 17 said:

I wasn’t really trying to start an argument so I’ll just stop it here. Didn’t mean to disrespect you or anything. Btw I look forward to your best and worst uniforms picks every week so keep up the good work

 

Fair enough, but I really would like to see how you define a uniform and where you think the Cowboys fall short. 

[C-Squared]

16 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

Fair enough, but I really would like to see how you define a uniform and where you think the Cowboys fall short. 

 

I would argue the team's current look is their worst ever. The whole set is loaded with superfluous elements. The white jersey still uses black stripes to make the blue striping pop, which was helpful in the days of SD TV's, but is needless today... the stars on the blue jersey sleeves reek of "it's the 90's, tack the logo on for merch purposes" and bordering white numbers with a 2nd layer of white feels redundant and cluttered.

 

Beyond that, I personally dislike that Dallas insists on their generic, slightly-too-large block numbers and boring solid blue socks... all those elements together seem worse knowing they mothballed perfection in their Staubach-era unis.

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, C-Squared said:

The white jersey still uses black stripes to make the blue striping pop, which was helpful in the days of SD TV's, but is needless today

 

I don't even understand why the black jerseys were needed in the SD days.  Royal blue against white certainly "pops" without the help of black, which is too close to the blue to even make a difference.  If anything, it just made the stripes appear thicker since in SD, you couldn't tell the difference except in close-up shots.

 

2 hours ago, C-Squared said:

the stars on the blue jersey sleeves reek of "it's the 90's, tack the logo on for merch purposes"

 

I don't mind the stars (except that as sleeves shrink, so should the use of sleeve logos) it's just that I don't like when one jersey is so different than the other.  I always thought they should work the star into the stripes of the white jersey too.  I can certainly understand why most would find it unnecessary and tacky.

 

2 hours ago, C-Squared said:

and bordering white numbers with a 2nd layer of white feels redundant and cluttered

 

Yeah... but it's just kinda their "thing".  As I said, I don't like it when one jersey is so much different than the other, and the extra white outline is absolutely "redundant and cluttered", but again, it's just their "thing" and I can accept it.  It adds a little bit of... IDK... "pizzaz"? to a team that is viewed by many in 2018 as one of the flashy teams, rather than an old-school traditional one.

 

2 hours ago, C-Squared said:

personally dislike that Dallas insists on their generic, slightly-too-large block numbers and boring solid blue socks

 

Oh we totally disagree here.  I wouldn't cry if they switched their thick-blue numbers, but it's a holdover to the old heat-pressed ones in the Emmit Smith/ Aikman / Irvin era, which is basically what I grew up with, and IMO it's just another one of their "things".  My big problem with it - and it's common with lots of fonts these days - is that you can't always tell 6, 8, 9 apart because of how tight they are now and how they warp around the chest pad.  

[infrared41]

On 11/11/2018 at 7:12 AM, C-Squared said:

 

I would argue the team's current look is their worst ever. The whole set is loaded with superfluous elements. The white jersey still uses black stripes to make the blue striping pop, which was helpful in the days of SD TV's, but is needless today... the stars on the blue jersey sleeves reek of "it's the 90's, tack the logo on for merch purposes" and bordering white numbers with a 2nd layer of white feels redundant and cluttered.

 

Beyond that, I personally dislike that Dallas insists on their generic, slightly-too-large block numbers and boring solid blue socks... all those elements together seem worse knowing they mothballed perfection in their Staubach-era unis.

 

None of which falls short of being a uniform. And that was the question. I didn't ask what you or the other guy don't like about it. Sorry. Hell, there are things about it that I don't like, but I stand by my original statement that at its core, the Cowboys uniform is a good one. Sue me. 

[oldschoolvikings]

7 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

 I stand by my original statement that at its core, the Cowboys uniform is a good one. Sue me. 

 

It's all relative, right? We are talking about a league with Cleveland, Cincinnati, Seattle, Tampa, Atlanta, Tennessee and Arizona. Hell, in that company, Dallas looks like the prettiest girl at the dance.

[Ark]

Dallas' uniforms are so underrated on this board.

 

If they wore silver pants, they would look like a lot of other teams (the Lions especially, and even more so now that the Lions are wearing silver pants on the road again). When you see that greenish-blueish silver, you know exactly what team it is. 

[infrared41]

21 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

It's all relative, right? We are talking about a league with Cleveland, Cincinnati, Seattle, Tampa, Atlanta, Tennessee and Arizona. Hell, in that company, Dallas looks like the prettiest girl at the dance.

 

You forgot Miami and Jacksonville, but the point remains. 

[Chawls]

Miami’s uniforms don’t deserve the grief it gets on the boards, IMHO. 

[IceCap]

59 minutes ago, Chawls said:

Miami’s uniforms don’t deserve the grief it gets on the boards, IMHO. 

They're better than then they were when they had navy worked into everything, but that logo just kills it for me.

[Cosmic]

I was drooling over the promo pics of the Dolphins uniforms, but they still seem washed out to me in game action. I'm ambivalent about the logo.

[infrared41]

2 hours ago, Cosmic said:

I was drooling over the promo pics of the Dolphins uniforms, but they still seem washed out to me in game action. I'm ambivalent about the logo.

 

Exactly.

[oldschoolvikings]

12 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

You forgot Miami and Jacksonville, but the point remains. 

To me, Miami has improved enough to not be outright objectionable anymore. And Jacksonville goes from pretty good to pretty bad based on the combo.

[DeFrank]

On 11/9/2018 at 8:38 PM, BringBackTheVet said:

I also have a little bit of a thing about logos that depict humans of a specific skin color.  I can't think of any logo that contains a human where the skin color is natural and isn't white*.  Elvis being silver is kinda white, but it's ambiguous enough to be OK.  Unless the team is named for a very specific person/thing (like the Blackhawks**) it should be neutral.  Just my opinion.

 

 

*Cleveland Indians and Chicago Blackhawks being exceptions.  Won't get in to Cleveland here.

**Yes I know they're not directly named after a person, but ultimately it ties back to a Native American.

 

I remember seeing this logo concept and being like... why is he white tho?

 

[C-Squared]

1 hour ago, DeFrank said:

I remember seeing this logo concept and being like... why is he white tho?

 

 

15 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

None of which falls short of being a uniform. And that was the question. I didn't ask what you or the other guy don't like about it. Sorry. Hell, there are things about it that I don't like, but I stand by my original statement that at its core, the Cowboys uniform is a good one. Sue me. 

 

You're a difficult victim.

[infrared41]

1 hour ago, C-Squared said:

 

 

 

You're a difficult victim.

 

I don't even know what that means.