jws008

Members
  • Content Count

    197
  • Joined

Community Reputation

38 Prospect

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I know we’re veering off topic for a number of posts here, but I think the easiest test for this is to ask if any team would reside in a place without the larger nearby market. The Pistons would never have played in Auburn Hills without Detroit being nearby. Same thing for the Angels in Anaheim, the Jets and Giants in East Rutherford, and the Bills in Orchard Park, etc., etc., etc...
  2. The Pistons are no longer in Auburn Hills, but have been playing at Little Caesars Arena in Detroit since fall of 2017. And the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim do have Anaheim in their formal name. Or were you joking with those examples?
  3. Just to be clear, it’s the Mets uniforms from 1993-94 that I’m referencing, not so much the BFBS ones that came later. Link to “Dressed to the Nines” uniform database
  4. To be serious for a moment, and to make an analogy with their New York expansion brethren, these uniforms really strike me as the Jets version of the Mets “swoosh” tail uniforms — trying to evoke the past (but not really), while trying to be modern in a tacky way. For the Mets, the tacky was a silly swoosh; for the Jets it will be this silly triangle/wedge thing or the city name on the chest (or both). Hopefully, the Jets will realize with their next uniform update that they already have their signature look — it just needed proper shoulder stripes and a single green. Given the choice between a “fixed” version of the last set, their 80s and 90s set, and this new one, I’ll take the first option every time.
  5. Better question: Has anyone taken their new “Gotham Green” and mocked it with the old uniforms?
  6. IMHO - It almost looks like the helmets and team logo were from one design team, and the jerseys, pants, and socks were from a second design team. Other than the typeface for Jets on the helmet and New York across the chest, nothing else “matches” so to speak.
  7. Not to go off topic, but if you don't like Lukas' opinion, whether it's about uniforms real or fictional, or what meat he cooked last night, why are you reading his site/blog? I don't always agree with him (my own opinions tend to be about 60/40 in agreement with his), but I find his writing thought-provoking and entertaining, even when he's not writing about a uni-centric thing. If/when these new uniforms are official, I will be interested to read his opinion on them.
  8. Some antics! Aren’t we all always up for some antics? (Especially when there’s no new news on the Dolphins’ changes)...
  9. This picture should remind us all that Babe Ruth never wore the NY logo on his jersey -- that's something that was added to the home uniform after Ruth. Proof that in those days, they weren't worried about changing an "iconic" look.
  10. What do you mean? At least the Browns didn't all but eliminate one of their iconic colors (yes, I'm talking about the lack of orange on the "Aqua Fresh" Dolphins uniforms).
  11. Even in the reveal pictures, it's weird how you almost do not see the words on the Pants from the front views, but see it spelled out from the back views. I suspect that on the field, what you see of the "Browns" on the pants will really depend on the size of the player and the "cut/fit" of their pants.
  12. I completely agree. What do you think about the fact that the main Giants wordmark is in a different typeface than the road San Francisco wordmark? Actually, the city name on a road uniform and team name on a home uniform have often been in different typefaces. To name two examples, the Red Sox (for much of their history), and the Mets (in their best sets). Heck, you can argue that the Yankees logo on the home pinstripes is a different typeface than the New York on their roads.
  13. From the wit of Douglas Adams, in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy": "Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea." Apparently Bucs' management thinks digital watches are still a pretty neat idea.
  14. The problem isn't that they haven't had any thought put into them, it's that they've had too much thought put into them. I'm nearly positive that each of these started out with a fairly decent initial idea or design and were constantly tinkered with and merged with other designs ad naseum. This leads to a loss of cohesion and produces a susceptibility to bad design in the name of innovation. And, of course, in this context, "innovation" is synonymous with "advertisement." As soon as these uniforms aren't about the team, but about the physical uniform, bad things happen. And I think that Edward Glazer's quote in the post at UniWatch (Hope it's ok I'm citing this here) the other day really brings out the above point, that "too much thought" was put into the new uniforms: "Glazer: We started this process a couple of years ago. And because we already had a uniform everyone was happy with, we were never in a rush. It was always, “Let’s take our time until we have something everyone feels great about, and then let’s move forward at that point.” We worked with Todd [Van Horne] over the years, looked at a lot of different designs, continued to meld and tweak, and got to the point where we looked at each other and said, “That’s it. That encapsulates the past, present and future.” I also think the above reveals that what others have stated about the design process is true - Nike suggests a ton of these modern options, but ultimately, it's up to the team to evaluate the designs, assist in melding and tweaking, and ultimately approve whatever becomes the new uniform. To put that another way: I think we can blame Nike for pushing and suggesting all the modern, "technological" "innovations" of their uniforms during the design process. BUT, ultimately, the team has to sign off on the new uniform. If the Bucs had wanted a classic, traditional uniform, they could have asked that of Nike. Instead they accepted this design as one that "encapsulates the past, present, and future." Especially since they did it with their previous redesign, I would love for the Bucs to show us the different designs that were looked at and rejected. (Sorry to be mentioning this point again, as I posted this last thought about a dozen pages back).
  15. Here's my hope, based on the Bucs' behavior the last time their look was rebranded, that we will eventually see some of the other options Nike and the design team presented to the team. (Because if this is what they decided on, how bad were the other options?!?!?).