Jump to content

The "Genericizing" of NFL Wordmarks


rmackman

Recommended Posts

Matching the logo is a pretty good reason.

As for the Patriots' logo with the warped Elvis in it, yeah, that looked bad, but the one without it was fine enough. Certainly better than what they're using now, and worlds ahead of that hideous bicentennial-style script they used to have.

And there were some pretty generic NFL wordmarks if you look back: Bengals, Falcons, and Cardinals were all pretty boring.

292.gif378.gifatlanta_falcons.jpg

No one is lamenting the loss of these.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Me, personally, I hate this generic wordmark trend going on. When I look at the new scripts for the Dolphins, Patriots, and Jags, I think of them being so generic that you could give it to any team that had the same nicknames, but looking at the old scripts, they were very distinct and automatically let you know who the team was. Going simple and modern just isn't for everyone.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That every single one of those changes was a significant upgrade tends to undercut your argument.

I agree. I can see an argument that the Dolphins and Pats were downgrades (though I don't feel that way), but the Jags and Panthers dumped steaming piles of crap.

Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse."

 

BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD

POTD (Shared)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pantherslogo.jpg

I don't know why, but it seems to me like the new Panthers wordmark fits better with the old logo, and the old wordmark fits better with the new. The new logo seems more streamlined and "aggressive," which would match the style of the old wordmark (cleaned up a bit of course), while the old logo seemed "traditional with a touch of modern," which matches the style of the new wordmark.

Tradition is the foundation of innovation, and not the enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you put all these new wordmarks next to each other, there's no question they do look pretty similar. However, if you put each update side by side with the mark they're replacing they are, IMO, almost all big upgrades.

So, the question is, what's better? To have a nice wordmark on it's own but be a little generic when compared to the group, or to stand out as unique, but dated and/or goofy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most sentiments about the Patriots. The new one isn't good, but it's better than the one it replaced.

As far as the Panthers & Jaguars, I think the updates are better than their previous incarnations. The Jaguars one was as bad as the Panthers, but the odd shape of the layout always bothered me.

Now with the Dolphins, I think that's the only one that's a downgrade. I don't like the new one compared to the old, however, they could've just cleaned up and simplified the old one to make it perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the Lions' new wordmark, if only because it's uniquely styled. It came out around the tail end of the phase that gave us the Texans, Seahawks, Cardinals, and Bengals' wordmarks, so it was just a relief to see something original and not a rehash.

That and the old one never really did it for me. It reminded me to much of the Cowboys and 49ers' wordmarks, and with the Lions being the least prominant of those three teams their wordmark kind of looked like it was trying to fit in with those other two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matching the logo is a pretty good reason.

As for the Patriots' logo with the warped Elvis in it, yeah, that looked bad, but the one without it was fine enough. Certainly better than what they're using now, and worlds ahead of that hideous bicentennial-style script they used to have.

And there were some pretty generic NFL wordmarks if you look back: Bengals, Falcons, and Cardinals were all pretty boring.

292.gif378.gifatlanta_falcons.jpg

No one is lamenting the loss of these.

For the Cardinals' wordmark, what's the deal with the Z; that thing is unnecessarily clunky. Also, the Cardinals had a wordmark where the primary logo was in place of the O, but I don't know if it was an on field logo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else remember when the Cardinals had their endzones done up like the Arizona state flag? Not on topic, I know, but that old clunky Cardinals wordmark reminded me of those endzones for some reason.

Anyway those Bengals and Falcons wordmarks were uninspired, but I'd take these versions over what they use now any day...

379_zpsad8fde3c.gif303_zps2e2cd044.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These all had character IMO. To me, sport should always be bright, colorful, and should never take itself too seriously because it's a game. No sports team should have the feel of an IBM, Microsoft, or HP.

MiamiDolphinsClassicScript4_zps96abbb16.

303.gif

894.gif

5gtfjeljv9kf52bdv9otg3fhf.gif

371.gif

609.gif

351.gif

1008.png

"Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be eaten. Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up. It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve. It doesn't matter whether you're a lion or a gazelle. When the sun comes up, you'd better be running." - Unknown | 🌐 Check out my articles on jerseys at Bacon Sports 🔗
spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's just following the trend of branding and design in general lately. Things are becoming much more streamlined and basic. Just look at the "flat" design of the new iOS7.

Yeah, in fact you'll similar type of fonts in a lot of non sport logos on this day and age

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Cardinals have had some crappy wordmarks...(from 2004):

ArizonaCardinals_WMK0100a_2004_SCC_SRGB.

ArizonaCardinals_PMW0100a_2004_SCC_SRGB.

...and then, there was this Primary Mark with Wordmark/Logotype (this particular one is from 1997):

ArizonaCardinals_PMW0100a_1997_SCC_SRGB.

The Cardinals used a slightly different shade of Red for the sunbeam stripes in the flag...why they didn't adjust it to Cardinal Red, I'll never know...they adjusted the Blue in the flag at one point - why not the Red?

Here's the flag from 2004 - this was actually designated as a Secondary Mark by the Cardinals:

ArizonaCardinals_SMK0100a_2004_SCC_SRGB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.