Ted Cunningham

Members
  • Content Count

    1,690
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

318 Platoon Sharer

About Ted Cunningham

  • Rank
    Let's go Bucs.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    West Virginia

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

8,168 profile views
  1. This is a Photoshop though, isn't it? There's something a little weird about the blue shoulder hoops, especially on the left shoulder. Plus, the 1 doesn't quite look right compared to the rest of the jersey, and how the light hits the folds. That's from an October game in 2009 against the Chiefs at Arrowhead.
  2. Look at that plug. Bold as brass; no shame at all!
  3. So like this? I used a different set of numbers (both from what they wear now and what Colorado uses), and I used the original falcon simply because it reminded me more of the two-color treatment that Colorado gives its buffalo. When I read this suggestion, I thought I wouldn't like it. But now that I've seen it, I'd say it's a fairly solid look. I don't think it would go over too well with Tampa Bay being in the same division, especially if Tampa keeps the pewter helmet and pants.
  4. Speaking as a non-fan out-of-the-area type, I don't mind the large logo either. I just don't like the logo itself. The 1997 to 2013 logo instead would look fine at the same size the modern version is displayed on the helmet.
  5. So, total aside from the discussion of LA NFL branding for a second: Are Braisher stripes "officially defined" as being color-white-color, where white has to be in the center? Or would any three stripes of equal width with no space in between be considered Braisher stripes? Take the traditional Browns, for instance. The helmet stripes are unequivocally Braisher stripes as defined: brown-white-brown. But the pants stripes are orange-brown-orange. It's the same general feel, but the center stripe isn't white. Another example: did the previous version of the Jets have Braisher stripes on the helmet and white pants? Or, were those just double stripes with a space in between?
  6. This is exactly what I thought too. It's too modern to really fit a "classic" look if that is, indeed, what the Browns are going to go for. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't use something similar to this when they first redesigned in 2015. (The "block" numbers they have now, not including the color rush jerseys, are the epitome of, "We overthought and overdesigned this just to make it unique."
  7. Ask and ye shall receive. I made some guesses as to what things would look like (as I don't know if the wordmark is simply custom or if it's a full typeface). But here's my rough idea:
  8. What makes it "blech", Ray? Is it because their color schemes are close together? I definitely like it. It's color on color with no "monochrome", and both sides are wearing arguably their best looks.
  9. Pitt vs. EMU was a very nice-looking, color-balanced game. (Also, this was the end of the game wherein EMU's QB punched at least one dude, Pitt's no. 12 faked a punch at EMU's QB, and the center judge, on the ground there, was collateral damage from one of EMU's QB's punches.)
  10. Having a realistic or action template makes understanding and visualizing concepts so much easier. Excellent work here. A nitpick though about the "Pride" jersey above: PIT is the airport. PGH is the city. (I realize that broadcasts generally shorten "Pittsburgh" to "PIT" in scorebugs, but if it's truly a civic pride thing you're going for, PGH is the correct abbreviation.)
  11. This gets at my sentiments about the Buccaneers' orange uniforms and, more broadly, my feelings about uniforms generally: I just really liked them. I didn't even necessarily follow the Buccaneers until after they had changed to red and pewter, but I would still pull for them in neutral games just because their uniforms were better. I think one thing that gets a little lost in this discussion is that, especially when their away numbers were orange with red strokes, the Buccaneers were essentially an orange and white team with red trim. (They were close to the Tennessee Volunteers with a trim color, frankly.) Yes, if one were to list the Buccaneers' colors from that time, one would most likely say orange and red. However, that's not how the team employed those colors. How they used those colors essentially neutralizes the argument that "red and orange are ugly together" because red is very obviously subordinate to orange and white within the identity. Changing subjects slightly to the Buccaneers' looks, more broadly: When I think about what looks I'd want each team to have to suit my tastes, I cannot decide with Tampa Bay. I was an ardent Buccaneers fan once they changed their uniforms. (I think the change brought my attention to the team, and then I liked that they were a "bad" team that was starting to play well. And I liked Mike Alstott and John Lynch. And Shaun King. Then once they won the Super Bowl, I lost interest and haven't really liked an NFL team or even followed the NFL closely since. Haha.) So, while my generally traditionalist viewpoint would dictate that I should go with the original creamsicle as the quintessential look for Tampa Bay, the red and pewter is such a solid, modern-(for the time anyway)-meets-traditional look. Tampa Bay was the rare (maybe even unique?) team that got it right the first time, and then got it right again upon its redesign.
  12. Fun fact: Brees-era Purdue used an identical number treatment. All white with an "offset" white stroke (for lack of a better way to describe it).
  13. While definitely similar, the uniforms here (which appear to be early 2000s maybe?) are different enough from the Chargers' uniforms of the same general era, especially given that Kent State did not wear a similar helmet. In the photo above, they're wearing their 2000-2015 eagle/bolt/K logo helmets. These uniforms also include gold touching blue, which is something entirely missing from the similar Chargers' uniforms (and, in my opinion, significantly changes the "feel" of these two looks). So yes, I agree that they're similar looks. But with the helmets bearing entirely different logos, and the color treatments being just different enough, I think it's fairly clear that it's Kent State and not the Chargers. As for the helmets themselves, Kent State has only ever worn one helmet that was a direct "copy" of a Chargers helmet and only for one game, on 11/2/2013 in a 16-7 loss to Akron. But, I think the point about similarity regarding helmets, specifically, carries more weight. According to the Helmet Project, Kent State has worn six helmets that essentially look like recolors of Chargers helmets. (This doesn't count the 1964-65 helmet and the 1998-99 helmet, as the former looks to have used a differently shaped bolt, and the latter had KENT under the bolt which obviously distinguishes it.) However, the Chargers have worn essentially the same helmet that has just gone through a series of re-colors through their entire existence. Further, it's a unique design, having the bolts almost mimicking stripes, instead of being a logo on the side of the helmet (a la Air Force). So any time Kent State would use a similar design, I think that could lead to confusion (in a vacuum, anyway) because of the essentially identical color scheme (even if the color treatment is a little different). (Obviously other factors would differentiate. I can't really think of a time where a viewer would be confused to see the LA Chargers playing the Ohio Bobcats on a Tuesday. But again, in a vacuum, and from a sheer trademark/protect-your-visual-identity/brand standpoint where, in football at least, helmets are so essential to brands, I do think that those particular Kent State helmets are too similar to the Chargers'.) I do think it's interesting that Kent State has two other bolt logos that I've not really seen used elsewhere: They should own either or both of those, as the bolt/electricity (i.e. golden flash) is a much more distinct mark around which to build a brand. They even have an updated version of the bolt-K (though it kind of also looks like a banner around the K?):
  14. Hold up. Is that black dropshadow/3D stroke on those numbers? Or is it just a trick of the folds?