Morgan33

These are laughably bad but fitting considering the trajectory their identity has been on these past 10 years.

Another boneheaded decision they made was getting rid of the Glacier Twill... Them and Pittsburgh.

Bought 8 Reverse Retro 2.0's and not a single one belongs to the Canucks... Don't regret a single purchase, especially now that the league is switching to Fanatics. RR 2.0 was the final gasp for collectors.

It looks like it has a straight hem-line. That would be a welcome return for the first time since 2007...

What an absolutely bone-headed decision it was to get rid of the Yeti Footprint... While the logo's nothing special in a flat application, embroidered it looks nothing short of beautiful. The way the silver sparkled always reminded me of snow and ice. It was so much more creative and fitting than the recoloured state-flag insignia.

The difference in these two blues is likely attributed to a change in the jerseys material. Their original authentics were done by Starter and featured a significantly looser knit mesh. To my knowledge the shade of blue didn't change when the Burgundy was darkened. I wholeheartedly agree that it looked much better when it was more "blue-green." Much warmer look.

Their recent cup happened in the most mismatched uniform in team history. Blue equipment, blue numbers, blue nowhere to be found on the striping or shoulder patches and multiple instances of the two colours bleeding into each-other and competing for prominence. There's nothing mismatched about the uniform they won the cup in 1996 in. You just personally don't like it.

Or they could just go back to something that was unique, worked in spite of its unconventional construction, saw immediate success, clothed some of the greatest players to ever partake in the sport and spawned one of the greatest rivalries of all time...

Sums up the last 10 years of this place to a tee.

You mean like this? I see blue on the numbers but not on the striping. I've explained ad-nauseam on this thread why they went with black equipment and why it was necessary. To eliminate any instances of burgundy and blue touching on the uniform. Look at how awful these colours look side by side. No contrast or definition what so ever.

It's not Black for Black's sake if Black is a part of their scheme and has been for all 28 years of the franchise's existence. This comment perfectly illustrates why this cringe term has lost all meaning in 2024. It doesn't need to be anywhere else. It's on the primary logo, numbers and equipment. It can be seen no matter what angle you're looking at the uniform from. Why must it arbitrarily be shoehorned onto the striping? You know you've got a cohesive and well thought out uniform set when it requires two sets of breezers to not look like a dogs dinner...

Both Avalanche original home and roads contain black so this point holds no water. Primary logo does too. Who's advocating the Red Wings or Canadiens start wearing black pants? Neither of them use it on their uniforms or logos so of course it would clash. Notice how this alternate doesn't have a single instance of burgundy and blue touching directly? There was a very good reason for the use of black equipment with their original uniforms. Which is something the team has forgotten since 2007...

You are right that black and white can stick out on a uniform. I don't think I ever made the argument that they didn't. But from a technical standpoint, they are still not colours. They are shades that augment colours. Black and White are nowhere visible on a colour spectrum and are therefore neutral. That doesn't mean they don't effect the visual weight of the uniform. The Avalanche made the creative decision, from day one, to use 3 neutral shades. There's black on the numbers and black on the front crest so I don't see the issue with black breezers. The jersey striping is Burgundy > Silver > Blue and that's repeated on the sock striping. I see no issue with balance on that road jersey. The only balance issue I see on the entire set is the discrepancy between the home striping and home socks. If the Ducks could get Eggplant gear in 1994, there is no reason to think the Avalanche couldn't get Burgundy gear in 1996. It was a creative decision on the part of the team, likely because they didn't want any instance of Burgundy and Blue to touch directly (because it looks terrible). Burgundy breezers would have broken this rule at home and blue breezers would have broken it on both uniforms. Why would they go out of their way to wear black helmets on the road, their first year, if this wasn't a intentional decision? It wasn't until the completely closed-minded and cringe inducing term; "Black for Black's Sake" was coined that anybody started taking issue with it.

The Flames logo is a symbol to represent the team, not a literal illustration of a C on fire. And this comment isn't directed at people who prefer either version, just that argument itself. "The white C represents white-hot fire" "The Black C looks burned out like the state of the franchise, lulz" It's a sports logo. Either version is perfectly acceptable to represent a fire based team.

It should be a debate. Some colour schemes look better with black.

God I miss this uniform. What an absolute travesty it is that this modern classic lasted only 3 seasons. This should be their alternate, not Blasty.

Here's the thing people tend to overlook about black on sports uniforms... Neither black nor white are technically colours. They are neutral shades. Putting the black equipment in the colour hierarchy of this uniform is like doing the same with the white uniform base. The actual colour hierarchy of this perfectly balanced uniform is Burgundy > Blue > Silver*. Just like on the home version. *although silver could technically be classified as a shade as well, And while this is significantly easier on the eyes than its garish, home counterpart, it's still not a very well balanced or thought out uniform. All that blue on the equipment and numbers and hardly a single trace of it on the actual jersey. Blue and Burgundy needless competing for dominance on the uniform. Blue and Burgundy touching when the whole reason for black equipment in the first place was to avoid this visually unappealing and contrast-less pairing.

How? Blue completely overpowers their main colour at home and on the road, you have burgundy and blue touching, which as their Edge disasters proved, looks awful. The blue numbers on the road, outlined in burgundy look terrible too. The whole set is just a mess. Every change they've made since 1996 has been a downgrade including darkening the burgundy. Give me the Forsberg, Roy, Sakic look any day of the week. There was nothing wrong with that set until Reebok destroyed it and Adidas forgot to bring back the double mountain stripes when attempting to fix it. This a balanced uniform This is a blue-heavy mess They're still using all those colours anyways. It's not as if black is completely absent from the uniform.

It's been 4 seasons and I still absolutely loathe the Avalanche in blue equipment. Championship or not, it still looks awful. The original uniforms were designed for Blue to be the secondary colour and for blue and burgundy to never touch... Yet this idiotic decision breaks both of those rules. It looks the worst at home where the blue completely overpowers the burgundy base. It's time for the Avalanche to bring back the uniforms that hoisted the cup in 2001... The colours were properly balanced, the numbers were more legible, the mountain striping looked better and the footprint shoulder patches actually matched the art style of the primary logo. Everything about that set is superior to the dogs dinner they have now. Bring back the original set, keep the navy alternate and don't change anything again.

Whatever they do will likely be sunk by oversized striping, numbers and other unnecessary gimmicks. Using the neon green wouldn't be bad if it was done tastefully.

it's a blanket statement for sure, but I stand by it. With the exception of what Seattle did recently, underwhelming is a generous way to describe those uniforms you listed. Vancouver and Dallas cheated us out of potentially great looking faux-backs based on their respective team's actual histories, Calgary had a truly horrible colour scheme, Minnesota looked goofy with the brown elbow patches, Winnipeg shoehorned a contemporary logo on a retro jersey and the rest simply looked boring.

Yeah, and they've all looked underwhelming at best. The worst of which, being the Dallas Texans fauxback which resulted in little more than a green Detroit template with a logo whose only interesting feature was the felt material it was made of. Just because a design is old, doesn't mean it's worth bringing back. The St Louis Eagles jersey is a relic from an era where little time and consideration were put into uniform design. The striping is derivative, the colours are synonymous with much more iconic teams and the logo is a third rate illustration at best. The St Louis Flyers jersey is the gaudy bastard child the New York Americans and Washington Capitals with no aesthetic ties to the current franchise what so ever. Neither of those designs are worth resurrecting.

They shouldn't throw back to the Eagles sweater because they're not the St. Louis Eagles. They're the St' Louis Blues, a second six franchise started in 1967. The Eagles were around for one season in 1935 and had an 11-31-6 record. Not exactly a sterling history worth remembering. A 1987-1994 throwback, with a few tweaks, has the potential to look amazing. Hopefully this is the direction they take.

I hope their appearance on the ice wasn't too triggering for you.