Ted Cunningham

Members
  • Content Count

    1,719
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

383 Platoon Sharer

About Ted Cunningham

  • Rank
    Let's go Bucs.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    West Virginia

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

8,294 profile views
  1. My goodness yes, this song is tremendous. One of my favorite by Broken Social Scene. Right up there with 7/4 Shoreline and Hotel (and all of You Forgot It In People, really).
  2. It's throwing me off just slightly to not be able to see any indication of the numbers on the full body template when the perspective (at least to my eye) looks like it should show some portion of the numbers. I don't know if that's easily remedied or not with what you're working with OSV. (And I understand what you mean about using Paint for certain things. Its simplicity is an asset in many cases.)
  3. I don't know. That'd probably make news outside the home markets.
  4. Oh, and the original logo in question (apparently still hosted on Photobucket).
  5. I was wondering how long it would take for whomever to figure it out. I feel like it taking a couple days like this goes to show that 1) there aren't a ton of people around from back then and 2) even fewer of those people visit the concepts forum, it appears. @JustForFun, given that you joined in 2007, I am presuming this was for the lulz, and it ruled. Nicely done. Somewhere, Lee is pleased. The Wyoming Marinerzz live on.
  6. Your last point is interesting because not only did they make the same mistakes, but aesthetically they were in the same situation: Both of them had stale early 00s rebrands which initially coincided with some success (with the Rams changing their look after winning the Super Bowl at the height of "the greatest show on turf" and the Falcons updating theirs during the Michael Vick years). Those early 00s rebrands were grounded in the trending uniform aesthetics of the era. But, as time went on, those looks became dated, and in the interim, the franchises introduced throwbacks to arguably simpler, more classic designs, which were appreciated by many fans, both because they were improvements over what they were wearing otherwise and for nostalgic reasons. Then, leading up to the 2020 season, both teams proceeded to overthink and overdesign what should have been simple rebrands: instead of returning to popular throwback looks (which seemed to be the obvious choice in both cases), both teams attempted to split the difference of listening to and pleasing the fans, and going with something modern or almost change for change's sake. I think that the head-scratching design choices (e.g. "bone" away jerseys and pants, and no blue accents on the away look for the Rams; the gradient jersey and number font for the Falcons) coupled with frank disappointment shared by ostensibly a lot of people in not returning these two teams to popular throwback looks puts them in that bottom tier, whether that's really an indictment of the designs themselves or not. Personally, I don't think either look is as bad as Cincinnati or Arizona, for instance, which still cling to that 00s piping and panels look. From a purely design standpoint, and given that some basic traditions of football uniforms are followed, they're not awful: if Atlanta were to wear black over white at home and white over white on the road (with contrasting socks) and LA were to wear gold pants with both their home and away jerseys, they'd be acceptable to me. But, that's the whole "in a vacuum" argument. We don't operate "in a vacuum", so the uniforms must be judged both from a purely design standpoint and within the broader context. Your post kind of made that click in my mind, BBTV: how parallel these two redesigns are.
  7. At least in terms of the rankings, they're not too far off. If you were to average them together (and I realize that's not the most useful, given it's only two people, but still), you'd get a distinct three tiers, which makes sense: Chargers - 1.5 Browns - 2 Buccaneers - 2.5 Colts - 4.5 Patriots - 4.5 Rams - 6.5 Falcons - 6.5
  8. Agreed. And this is what @heavybasswas getting at as well. "Bone" over yellow with blue socks is the best-looking combination for an away look, and I feel like it's also the most logical.
  9. Something I feel like we, on this forum, discuss a fair bit is how when yellow/gold and white are next to each other on uniforms, they tend to bleed together and their individual elements become harder to distinguish. The "Bone" color the Rams are using seems to exacerbate that issue. Any strictly white elements are now essentially guaranteed to be lost at all viewing distances except player-to-player, and the yellow they're using becomes even more difficult to pick out from the Bone elements because Bone appears that much closer to yellow in value (as part of hue, saturation and value) than white is (where, at least by perception, yellow would have a lower value simply because it isn't white; I grant that technically/scientifically, that's not the case, but as far as how we would perceive it, white is "brighter" than yellow). What I'm essentially getting at is the Rams have made the yellow-and-white-elements-next-to-each-other problem worse by using "Bone".
  10. Generally, I think that a logo on top of a sleeve stripe somehow cheapens the look; doing that makes it look like a retail/for-fans replica jersey. I feel like for a while, the NFL was selling replica shirts/jerseys that were made out of jersey-style material, but only featured a player's name and number (in the appropriate fonts) with the team's logo on the sleeves instead of striping and/or TV numbers. I think that, coupled with the over-designed feel of the Cowboys' blue jersey (which features their star logo over the stripes on the sleeves), has turned me off to the whole idea of combining sleeve stripes and logos.
  11. The quoted above is spot on, though for whatever reason, a lot of the general consensus about this rebranding would tend to disagree with that by lumping it in with the LA logo and the rumored changes to the uniforms. (That's not to say the STL logo was bad; it's not, or at least I don't think so. But the new one feels like a fairly logical modernization of the several rams heads the Rams have used in the past.)
  12. This feels cheap to me. I think part of that has to do with the template though. (And I can't really put my finger on why it feels that way, necessarily.) Plus, I don't know if the Cubs have the exclusive rights to that set of numbers (or if it's more like Boston's use of McAuliffe numbers; they're just the only ones who use that set of numbers, but don't have exclusive rights to it). Perhaps I missed something definitive in previous discussions about which colors are involved, but with the gradients: If the Rams were to use a gradient in the gold elements of the uniform that went from "Sol" to "Light Orange" (or even to "Sunset"), that would look far better than a gradient from "Sol" to white. While the former, applied to the numbers, the horns on the helmet, and/or the striping would be a way to tie in an update from the logo without looking too different, the latter makes the elements on the mockups I've seen look washed out. It's like the uniforms were washed in bleach that only affects yellow dye or something. There are obviously any number of changes the Rams can (and likely will) make to deviate from the classic royal and gold uniforms. But using a gradient from gold to white would be a mistake. It looks decidedly washed out.
  13. Oh no, I was just making a joke. Suggesting that Jymp had reached the breaking point due to lack of news and little else happening. Jymp went through the trouble of registering after years of lurking just to express frustration over the natural deviation of these NFL-related rebrand threads. That was the straw that broke the camel's back.