Unpopular Opinions

[MCM0313]

3 hours ago, joey joe joe jr. shabadoo said:

 

Absolutely loved this look as well. To me it was the perfect balance of black, red, white, and gray. Everything worked in pretty good harmony here. What they have now is way to busy, too cluttered, too nonsensical and painful on the eyes. Would like to seem them return to something a lot cleaner and crisper. Just too arena league with what they have now. I'm surprised they didn't change something up when they moved into the new stadium

 

As clean as the look in this photo is, it's lacking something to me. For some reason - not sure if it's that they had Back in Black and then Dirty Birds and I didn't see them in just red and black till 2003, when I was 19, or just an aesthetic thing (as I mentioned, red and black is far from my favorite color scheme) - I don't like them as much without silver or grey elements in their uniforms. Metallic gold could work too, if done right, but they probably would consider that too close to the Saints' well-established look. But, yeah, while this would be an upgrade from their current look, it would still feel incomplete to me if they were to wear it full-time.

[DrAwesomeberry]

8 hours ago, QueenCitySwarm said:

I commented a while ago, but I just thought of a new one:

 

The Expos should not return. Olympic Stadium is in shambles and I believe the nostalgia would wear off way too quickly and leave the team in the same situation it was in.

I think the only way they would come back is if there are concrete plans for a new stadium. The Big O would only be a temporary solution like RFK for the former Expos. 

[MCM0313]

5 hours ago, joey joe joe jr. shabadoo said:

 

Wait, does this have grey in it? If so it's too light.

[Bayne]

20 hours ago, Chromatic said:

I think the uniforms are great.

 

The logos are pretty bad though 

 

I wholeheartedly disagree. Logos are poor, jersey is poor.

[Prince Harry]

On 05/05/2018 at 9:23 PM, Chromatic said:

I think the uniforms are great.

 

The logos are pretty bad though 

I’m of the opposite mind. Think the jerseys are weird (mainly the random aviator blue trim I don’t like). The logos are good, if a bit busy.

 

At least, the new logos are much better than the old ones. Wordmarks in general suck as logos, and the most famous iterations of the old logo gave very little prominence to the actual jet in the logo. 

[Chromatic]

38 minutes ago, Prince Harry said:

I’m of the opposite mind. Think the jerseys are weird (mainly the random aviator blue trim I don’t like). The logos are good, if a bit busy.

 

At least, the new logos are much better than the old ones. Wordmarks in general suck as logos, and the most famous iterations of the old logo gave very little prominence to the actual jet in the logo. 

The jerseys are fine. It’s hard to find a striping pattern that’s both subdued and not generic, and I think they’ve hit it, particularly their away jerseys.

 

As fans logos, ‘Winnipeg Jets’has so much potential. An RCAF insignia with a beveled jet and the maple leaf shoehorned in every logo doesn’t make a good look. I like the aviator blue, it beats the generic red and navy of the logos. The only logo I like is the word mark, because it reminds of the vapour trail of a jet.

[whitedawg22]

On 5/1/2018 at 10:13 PM, MCM0313 said:

Here's one: the New York Jets have had plenty of decent-to-good uniforms, but have never truly had an elite, unforgettable look in my opinion. Their SB III set is their most iconic for obvious reasons, but none of it has anything to do with a name that should have some very interesting design possibilities. In general they've been too plain.

 

With few exceptions, teams' uniforms generally don't have anything to do with their nickname. The 80s/90s JETS wordmark is arguably superior to the current oval logo, but other than that, I don't really want to see a uniform that incorporates jets into the design somehow.

[NeauXone]

On 5/6/2018 at 7:50 AM, QueenCitySwarm said:

I commented a while ago, but I just thought of a new one:

 

The Expos should not return. Olympic Stadium is in shambles and I believe the nostalgia would wear off way too quickly and leave the team in the same situation it was in.

They could, y’know, build a new stadium? It’s not like they HAVE to play in the O.

[OnWis97]

1 hour ago, whitedawg22 said:

 

With few exceptions, teams' uniforms generally don't have anything to do with their nickname. The 80s/90s JETS wordmark is arguably superior to the current oval logo, but other than that, I don't really want to see a uniform that incorporates jets into the design somehow.

I agree.  I actually really liked the 1980s wordmark because it was a subtle inclusion of the image.  

 

It's not wrong to feature a team's name but some names (Brewers, Devils, Cowboys, Angels) are not as conducive to an obvious full-blown image as others (Cardinals, Maple Leafs, Rams).

 

Speaking of the Devils, I think the 1980s Jets logo is similar to the Devils logo in their subtle nods to the image.  The Devils logo beats the heck out of a menacing devil with a pitchfork surrounded by fire. Same with the Angels.

[Prince Harry]

12 hours ago, Chromatic said:

The jerseys are fine. It’s hard to find a striping pattern that’s both subdued and not generic, and I think they’ve hit it, particularly their away jerseys.

 

As fans logos, ‘Winnipeg Jets’has so much potential. An RCAF insignia with a beveled jet and the maple leaf shoehorned in every logo doesn’t make a good look. I like the aviator blue, it beats the generic red and navy of the logos. The only logo I like is the word mark, because it reminds of the vapour trail of a jet.

I think I’d like the aviator blue more if it was used as the main jersey colour, with little accents of red and navy here and there. The light blue feels tacked on in its limited use with the current ones, since there’s none in the logo. Lighter blue with navy pants/helmet is used by no one in the NHL, except STL who use Royal not light blue. 

 

I suppose the Jets considered that they didn’t want to look like the Thrashers, but’s it better then careening between looking pretty close to the Jackets or looking like the Rangers (retro look). 

[daveindc]

On 5/1/2018 at 10:13 PM, MCM0313 said:

Here's one: the New York Jets have had plenty of decent-to-good uniforms, but have never truly had an elite, unforgettable look in my opinion. Their SB III set is their most iconic for obvious reasons, but none of it has anything to do with a name that should have some very interesting design possibilities. In general they've been too plain.

 

Yeah they need an update. They went back to a mediocre look that they just happened to win a SB in decades prior, and it was a failure. They should try an update with kelly green and black. Maybe with a green or black helmet.

 

[Dynasty]

I don't want both the Jets and the Eagles, two of the only three green teams in the league, using black; one of them have to be green-only (I prefer the Jets, though the Eagles' midnight green and black aren't exactly an appealing combination). What I think they need is a different number font. Obviously not too crazy, but distinguishable enough... oh, and Kelly green FTW.

 

Those Marshall uniforms by the way, would be damn near-perfect if it weren't for those unnecessary shoulder caps.

[JerseyJimmy]

I absolutely loathe the cuts of modern uniforms. "Sleek" and "aerodynamic" can eat my ass. One of my favorite things about sports uniforms, football and basketball especially, was the baggy look to them. Nike's football templates in particular are godawful; not only do they make most offensive linemen look like lard-asses, but they've effectively ruined the concept of doing anything cool with the sleeves ever, because why bother when the jerseys are basically sleeveless?

[BadSeed84]

6 hours ago, Jimmy Lethal said:

I absolutely loathe the cuts of modern uniforms. "Sleek" and "aerodynamic" can eat my ass. One of my favorite things about sports uniforms, football and basketball especially, was the baggy look to them. Nike's football templates in particular are godawful; not only do they make most offensive linemen look like lard-asses, but they've effectively ruined the concept of doing anything cool with the sleeves ever, because why bother when the jerseys are basically sleeveless?

 

To be fair, while yes I don't like Nike's football uniforms (especially FLAT everything, nothing shiny jersey or pants wise). They didn't ruin the concept of sleeves, that was happening before they took over during when Reebok was doing the uniforms and probably in football in general.

It's funny how like in the 80s baseball has tight fitting uniforms and football had baggy jerseys with big sleeves, now its reversed.

[whitedawg22]

13 hours ago, daveindc said:

 

Yeah they need an update. They went back to a mediocre look that they just happened to win a SB in decades prior, and it was a failure. They should try an update with kelly green and black. Maybe with a green or black helmet.

 

I don't understand why the Jets need black. Green and white provide plenty of contrast on their own, and look so much cleaner. The Detroit Lions got rid of black, and it improved their uniform by leaps and bounds.

[OnWis97]

12 minutes ago, whitedawg22 said:

 

I don't understand why the Jets need black. Green and white provide plenty of contrast on their own, and look so much cleaner. The Detroit Lions got rid of black, and it improved their uniform by leaps and bounds.

With you on the Lions.  And I dislike almost every instance of adding black (Mets, Royals, even the Flames).  But for reasons I cannot articulate, I loved the Jets addition of black.

[MCM0313]

2 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

With you on the Lions.  And I dislike almost every instance of adding black (Mets, Royals, even the Flames).  But for reasons I cannot articulate, I loved the Jets addition of black.

Ditto. 1990-97 Jets looked notably better than 1980s Jets, even though the 1990-97 Jets played much worse!

[MCM0313]

23 hours ago, whitedawg22 said:

 

With few exceptions, teams' uniforms generally don't have anything to do with their nickname. The 80s/90s JETS wordmark is arguably superior to the current oval logo, but other than that, I don't really want to see a uniform that incorporates jets into the design somehow.

O RLY?

 

[NeauXone]

10 hours ago, Jimmy Lethal said:

I absolutely loathe the cuts of modern uniforms. "Sleek" and "aerodynamic" can eat my ass. One of my favorite things about sports uniforms, football and basketball especially, was the baggy look to them. Nike's football templates in particular are godawful; not only do they make most offensive linemen look like lard-asses, but they've effectively ruined the concept of doing anything cool with the sleeves ever, because why bother when the jerseys are basically sleeveless?

Nike’s NBA jerseys are just whole ass. Garbage material and the shoulder stripes are cut off at the back on ALL jerseys. Why?

[daveindc]

7 hours ago, whitedawg22 said:

 

I don't understand why the Jets need black. Green and white provide plenty of contrast on their own, and look so much cleaner. The Detroit Lions got rid of black, and it improved their uniform by leaps and bounds.

 

I don't understand this comparison. Kelly green and black looks great together, and it would be unique combo that ties into the Jets' history. It's not just black for black sake.