seahawk9

2013 NFL uniform/logo changes

6,525 posts in this topic

Would you rather have your favorite team have a logo you really like and uniforms you hate, or great uniforms and a crappy logo?

Better looking uniforms duh.

Better logo. If anything is bound to change first it's the uniform. Also more merchandise you buy will have the logo. So yeah I rather like the logo. Also I am hearing Miami has two white unis, one home and away, one navy trimming other orange. Now again idk if I believe it or not based on makes no sense marketing to not have a dark jersey. They sell more then white jerseys. I trust my source but I think it's either a mis understanding or confusing

They have to have a dark jersey, since they can't wear white when the opponent chooses to wear white.

I thought the home team chose the jerseys?

But regardless, maybe they just have two white options for the away unis.

Exactly. And when their opponent chooses to wear white at home, then the Dolphins must have a non-white jersey.

As for the two white jerseys, I'm not sure how that would fit in with the current NFL jersey rules. I would think they would have a regular white, regular aqua, and then maybe they could also have a throwback white?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus we saw aqua in the leak. Unles they have two whites and aqua when they have to, and that's why they dot have orange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you rather have your favorite team have a logo you really like and uniforms you hate, or great uniforms and a crappy logo?

Better looking uniforms duh.

Better logo. If anything is bound to change first it's the uniform. Also more merchandise you buy will have the logo. So yeah I rather like the logo. Also I am hearing Miami has two white unis, one home and away, one navy trimming other orange. Now again idk if I believe it or not based on makes no sense marketing to not have a dark jersey. They sell more then white jerseys. I trust my source but I think it's either a mis understanding or confusing

They have to have a dark jersey, since they can't wear white when the opponent chooses to wear white.

I thought the home team chose the jerseys?

But regardless, maybe they just have two white options for the away unis.

Exactly. And when their opponent chooses to wear white at home, then the Dolphins must have a non-white jersey.

As for the two white jerseys, I'm not sure how that would fit in with the current NFL jersey rules. I would think they would have a regular white, regular aqua, and then maybe they could also have a throwback white?

Oh, duh. Wasn't thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...I agree that the Vikings update was a fantastic revision of the old one...

norseman-article-comp.jpg

If the Norseman is what you're talking about then you gotta be kidding...the changes are so minor that it reminds me of one of those puzzles in kid magazines where you have to spot the minute differences between two photos of a pig riding a bike.

Exactly. The proof is that they actually had to post a picture of the new and old for anyone to realize.

It would be like the Colts adding another dot to their horseshoe.

"The Horseshoe has evolved: Now features 8 dots instead of 7!"

That doesn't stop it from being a good update. They fix what needed to be fixed, and that's all that matters.

Sorry but what exactly was it that needed to be fixed? Because I see minor changes, but nothing that I would call a "fix" (if it even was broken). The gold is lighter. The braid is shorter. The nose is rounder. Oh and the horns are smoother. Is that what you call a "fix"? I still fail to see how anyone can call this a logo "evolution" with a straight face.

People use the word "evolution" all the time around here, and I'm convinced that 90% of those people don't know what the word actually means.

Regardless, the new logo is an update because what was lacking with the old logo was fixed. Let's start with the most minor change. The gold. It's lighter. The previous shade was the same shade used by their division rivals the Packers. Now the Vikings have a shade to call their own.

Now onto more noticeable changes. The braid being shortened allows the mark to seem more compact and less unwieldy. The linework in the beard and face is bolder, making it more like a proper logo and less like a mid 20th century illustration. The bolder linework allows the logo to be, well bolder, without compromising the original design. The horns have also been updated. Not only do they look more like the helmet's horns, but the elimination of unnecessary linework accomplishes the same thing that bolding the linework in the face and beard did. It gives the logo a much needed facelift, removing dated elements without compromising the design.

One of the best improvements we've seen in the NFL.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...I agree that the Vikings update was a fantastic revision of the old one...

norseman-article-comp.jpg

If the Norseman is what you're talking about then you gotta be kidding...the changes are so minor that it reminds me of one of those puzzles in kid magazines where you have to spot the minute differences between two photos of a pig riding a bike.

Exactly. The proof is that they actually had to post a picture of the new and old for anyone to realize.

It would be like the Colts adding another dot to their horseshoe.

"The Horseshoe has evolved: Now features 8 dots instead of 7!"

That doesn't stop it from being a good update. They fix what needed to be fixed, and that's all that matters.

Sorry but what exactly was it that needed to be fixed? Because I see minor changes, but nothing that I would call a "fix" (if it even was broken). The gold is lighter. The braid is shorter. The nose is rounder. Oh and the horns are smoother. Is that what you call a "fix"? I still fail to see how anyone can call this a logo "evolution" with a straight face.

People use the word "evolution" all the time around here, and I'm convinced that 90% of those people don't know what the word actually means.

Regardless, the new logo is an update because what was lacking with the old logo was fixed. Let's start with the most minor change. The gold. It's lighter. The previous shade was the same shade used by their division rivals the Packers. Now the Vikings have a shade to call their own.

Now onto more noticeable changes. The braid being shortened allows the mark to seem more compact and less unwieldy. The linework in the beard and face is bolder, making it more like a proper logo and less like a mid 20th century illustration. The bolder linework allows the logo to be, well bolder, without compromising the original design. The horns have also been updated. Not only do they look more like the helmet's horns, but the elimination of unnecessary linework accomplishes the same thing that bolding the linework in the face and beard did. It gives the logo a much needed facelift, removing dated elements without compromising the design.

One of the best improvements we've seen in the NFL.

Yes thank you

I'll add to that

Broke up the semi-circle that used to be there with the new braid, this also help fix the slight problem the old one had where there was a strange curve to the face and hair, with the braid at the center. The new one looks like its all on the same plane as a side profile should.

Like you said the new detail lines in the hair help greatly...but id like The one little line added to the eyebrow makes it look much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two light jerseys certainly is still on the table, as seen with the Seahawks, though having two with such minor differences doesn't sound very lucrative. Teams with, say, black alternates typically have "Black-Outs" for fans when they wear them, though I don't really see many fans getting into "Wear-small-amounts-of-orange-where-you-may-have-worn-small-amounts-of-blue-Out Day."

Lame joke?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The changes are minor but the new one is much better logo don't you think.

Sorry if this comes across as snarky, but if the VIkings hadn't announced the change, I wouldn't be surprised if it took half a season before anyone noticed...

But you still did not answer the question if it is now a better logo.

The general public is never going to notice logos like we do on here but if something is done to make it better it should be done.

Another benefit of this new design with bolder lines you can actually see them scaled down at smaller sizes.

I know that goes against alot of stuff we see now with sublimated designs that nobody can see but the person wearing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The changes are minor but the new one is much better logo don't you think.

Sorry if this comes across as snarky, but if the VIkings hadn't announced the change, I wouldn't be surprised if it took half a season before anyone noticed...

But you still did not answer the question if it is now a better logo

Not if I can't tell the difference without being shown...It was fine before and it's still fine, no better no worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you asking this guy if the logo is better? The people who know it is are the ones who redesigned the logo and the team. The team will be able to use the logo for the benefits already pointed out. Even if this guy doesn't see the benefits if he is a fan he'll buy the merchandise. The ones who see the new features just have a better appreciation for them. This other guy doesn't. In the grand scheme of things because of the subtleties people will still buy the merchandise and his opinion really doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you asking this guy if the logo is better? The people who know it is are the ones who redesigned the logo and the team. The team will be able to use the logo for the benefits already pointed out. Even if this guy doesn't see the benefits if he is a fan he'll buy the merchandise. The ones who see the new features just have a better appreciation for them. This other guy doesn't. In the grand scheme of things because of the subtleties people will still buy the merchandise and his opinion really doesn't matter.

When it's a team you love, the most minute change is a big deal to you, but laughingly irrelevant to a fan of some other team. I'm not trying to diss anyone with my above comments, just speaking as someone who's not a Vikings fan.

As a Dolphins fan, I thought it was a HUGE deal when the logo was tweaked in 1974 and 1989, but it would have been hard to find a fan of another team who even noticed..

590x170xMiami-Dolphins-Logo-Timeline-1966-2013-590x170.jpg.pagespeed.ic.B22OYKF9AL.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you asking this guy if the logo is better? The people who know it is are the ones who redesigned the logo and the team. The team will be able to use the logo for the benefits already pointed out. Even if this guy doesn't see the benefits if he is a fan he'll buy the merchandise. The ones who see the new features just have a better appreciation for them. This other guy doesn't. In the grand scheme of things because of the subtleties people will still buy the merchandise and his opinion really doesn't matter.

I was just making the point if the logo is better than the change was worth doing because he implied the new logo should not have been done.

That was just a small point I had the conversation was much bigger if you did not read the previous posts & I was speaking in general not just the Vikings Logo.

And besides this is what we do here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...he implied the new logo should not have been done.

My final word on this.

I never implied that it shouldn't have been done, I just think the praise paid to it was too much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking at the Miami Dolphins Facebook page and I'm baffled at the comments. That's a whole lot of stupid, then again I guess the same could be said for most comments on the Internet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...he implied the new logo should not have been done.

My final word on this.

I never implied that it shouldn't have been done, I just think the praise paid to it was too much...

Sorry I thought you were agreeing with vmd9 who said it was pointless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I found a somewhat better picture of the Vikings helmet, and yes it is purple.

612_1364493763.jpg

I can't tell if they have a matte-like decal stripe going down the helmet (like the one Seattle has), but it looks like the Viking horns might be chrome...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I found a somewhat better picture of the Vikings helmet, and yes it is purple.

612_1364493763.jpg

I can't tell if they have a matte-like decal stripe going down the helmet (like the one Seattle has), but it looks like the Viking horns might be chrome...

that photo is from the NFL Nike release last april

VikingsUni1_display_image.jpg?1333473116

and so is the image on http://vikingsuniforminsider.com/#

Minnesota-Vikings-Nike-jersey.jpg

background.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I found a somewhat better picture of the Vikings helmet, and yes it is purple.

612_1364493763.jpg

I can't tell if they have a matte-like decal stripe going down the helmet (like the one Seattle has), but it looks like the Viking horns might be chrome...

I'm assuming this is meant as an April Fool's joke, but that's one of the original Nike uniform release photos.

New.Vikings.Uniforms.Front.jpg?v=1

EDIT* And someone beat me to it

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