Brave-Bird 08

4 minutes ago, tBBP said:

The Jags just updated their Facebook cover photo...

 

 

...Either this is the troll job of the century, or they just told us straight up exactly what throwback uniforms they plan on wearing.

 

(And inside of two years, I HOPE they come back ad perma-primaries...)

This will always be my favorite NFL uniform. It's so perfect. Every single detail. Fools for ever making changes and going down the absolutely bizarre path with their identity that they have.

7 minutes ago, VDizzle12 said:

The Browns have done such a good job fixing their branding in the past 4 years. But the logos still seem to be the one spot that they just can't get right. An illustration of an outdated piece of equipment is not a logo, regardless of how iconic it may seem. It makes even less sense now that the team uses two different helmets. I've never owned anything with the helmet logo on it and never will.  A dog is fine for the Dawg Pound and Brownie is fine for throwback merch. But the team needs a legit logo. Something as simple as a CB monogram is the best move.

I've always found the most ironic part of it all that the Cincinnati Bengals, who were the eccentric offshoot of the Browns and eventually doubled-down at that identity by creating -- at the time -- a groundbreaking uniform that pushed all convention out the window, eventually decided their logo should just be a B monogram. 

Sometimes I even wonder if that was done on purpose, knowing that the Browns identity is so plain by default that using one of the C or B monograms would cut their likely logo options in half. 

But, like, come on Cleveland. The classic standing elf is as good as it gets. 

saying "goes hard" should get you banned from this board 

2 minutes ago, HOOVER said:

Too many cooks in the kitchen.

Right? 30+ focus groups is why the team is officially calling one of its uniforms a "tough" uniform like lmao have some self respect, Texans

They described a uniform officially as "tough" 

That's so bad it makes me long for a big fat icy whites post to hit me in the face

The logo slick update is 90% of this for me. The previous logo was a joke. This set is proper for the franchise. 

Wait, Bryce Harper just straight up wore an old uniform last night? I feel like that's a pretty big deal.

19 minutes ago, Lumbergh said:

I designed this as a concept a few years ago. The Broncos Wire beat writer has been in contact with me since yesterday regarding this. I'm not sure how it happened either...

Wait, wait, WAIT. Am I reading back through this thread correctly, that this was emailed out officially by the Broncos??? 

35 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

Honestly, the Cardinals new uniforms do have a nice classic and timeless feel to them. It has everything anyone would want out of a football uniform. Every component by itself is very well done. Whether or not they decide to mix and match and not go monochrome for 17 games a season is on them.

I agree. I even really like the home jersey, personally don't mind big wordmarks -- it has plenty of precedence, especially in the collegiate ranks. All they have to do is avoid monochrome and they would look outstanding. The helmet is especially fantastic. 

32 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

I think this was the intent.  They just completely botched the on-field ones and didn't care enough to fix it (or were prevented by rules.)

 

I feel like this uniform's greatest magic trick was that the gradient helmet was so bad, discussion about the absolutely nonsensical plastic material on the shoulders went by the wayside. WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THESE?!

3 minutes ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

The rule doesn't say teams have to have three helmets, just that they can.  The raiders do fine with just one. Let's not go assuming things here.

I would think more than half the league would take the opportunity to go all-in with what they can do by making additions. Sure, the Raiders and Packers might not make any additions...but let's look at the NFC South, for example. I would think that entire division ends up rotating through helmets pretty regularly.

We have gone from the NFL basically treating their team's helmets like primary logos to inevitably rotating through uniforms like college teams do. 

Ick. This scares me, especially because I fear teams will use this opportunity to complete the "icy whites" look. 

(Also, does this maybe clear up what's going on with Denver? Could be that white helmet is for an all-white alternate look, while the primary will be blue. We will see.)

I think it's fair that people tracking this thread specifically, and uniform trends in general, are more negative than "usual." 

I really appreciated Paul Lukas' interviews he posted with that former Nike creative, but it showcased to me a dynamic between the parties that be when these uniform projects are undergone that has potential to be worse now than ever -- there's too many cooks in the kitchen and events that can happen during these processes where poor opinion/input/perception can take over. 

Call me crazy -- or cynical -- but I just feel like that in the past uniform designs always felt polished, thoughtful, congruent and in the past few decades we've instead slipped into this meta where not only is quality control down, but companies are cheapening internal processes (when they think they're streamlining them) and folks who aren't qualified to make decisions are unfortunately in the position of power to make them (could go on a tangent about this in every industry, not just sports design). 

Did you see the quote in that interview about either Malcolm Glazer, or one of his children, where they used one of those notorious bad "Nike NFL" photoshops from circa 2012 and was like "why can't you do this?" And the Nike team basically had to be like, "well s---, we have to execute on their orders. These are going to suck!" 

That's how we got the Buccaneers, Titans, Jaguars, Browns, Jets, Falcons, etc. 

Add to the mix that the trend of wearing monochrome head-to-toe is becoming universal across the league because of brainless trend-following that has been perpetuated by this TikTok, social media clout-chasing era we live in, and it's more likely we keep seeing more of the same poor uniform elements versus actually getting something that is both interesting and looks good. 

Between the chorus of rejected uniform designs and downgrades in the NFL, the dilution of the meaning of a uniform in the NBA, and the absolute hilarity happening in MLB right now, what reason do any of us have to anticipate anything but more of the same in the next few weeks? 

Just bring back the Mercury Mets vests, cowards

8 minutes ago, GhostOfNormMacdonald said:

  I'll say it. I love the Twins' new M  logo. It's all I wear now. Maybe it's because I'm an outstater that loves faux-backs, but it's fantastic. Completely grown on me. Love that we have it in the rotation.

 

These current Twins unis are the best they've ever had 

Yes. Love them. Only thing I would change is just use block numbers, and I don't like state-outline logos...so they could drop that. 

@aawagner011 re: the Braves belt loops, I somehow just watched the entire game without noticing that. I have noticed that these new pants have those two big belt loop panels on the front. I'm not sure if its necessary -- I always thought of it as the anchor of the pant side stripe, if you can catch my drift. So, it feels weird to have if the side stripe isn't running up to it. 

But, shoot, anything that makes it look like the uniform got some extra attention to detail makes it stand out with the way the rest of MLB looks.

I'm glad none of those concepts from Nike turned real. That old Nike template was wayyyy too busy, with way too many seams and panels sewn together. Honestly, in hindsight, nothing looks good on it. Even the Ravens uniforms looked worse while they retained that template for as long as they did. 

3 hours ago, shaydre1019 said:

The Rockets logo isn't perfect by any means, but you can at least read the full team name which should be one base line for global marks, and you can see some semblance of an abstract planet/ring/space tie in.

I couldn't describe the Thunder OKC logo if I had to. When it initially leaked I thought it was an abstract fish. But it's also not generic enough to work like a Brooklyn Nets type logo.

Because you are in Houston I am going to give the benefit of the doubt for maybe not being willing to accept it. 

But, there's so much wrong with the Rockets logo. The "banner" stops at the keyline but the words keep wrapping around. The font is not the Rockets font and does not tie into the R monogram that is just lazily slapped on top of the ball. There is black and two separate shades of grey -- and again, a random red logo at a completely different scale with thin white trim just PLOPPED DOWN on top of a graphic that otherwise looks like it was whipped up by an amateur in a high school Graphic Design 101 class. 

The Thunder logo is congruent and professionally done, it's just incredibly generic and boring. It means...nothing. 

Still, one is INFINITELY worse than the other. It actually is kind of hurting my brain that anyone on these boards would be convinced otherwise. 

This makes sense for MLS. At first, having USL teams come to Kennesaw up the road sounded like a great addition to the sportswatching opportunities already afforded to me in the area, and in the first few seasons I went to a few ATLUTD2 matches. 

But within MLSNP, I don't have any motivation to go. The attendance at those games has dwindled down to pretty much family and friends, and it suprises me they haven't moved the MLSNP matches for the 2 team to the ATLUTD campus in Marietta, because it's not benefiting Kennesaw State Univ. in any way to hold matches there. 

The more MLSNP can look like its own league and serve other communities, the better. 

53 minutes ago, FrutigerAero said:

Is it that their tops are more blue than the pants?  Otherwise I'm not seeing anything.

Of course that's it, yes. That's like if I said an asteroid is coming towards Earth and the response was, "are you talking about the bright ball in the sky that keeps getting bigger and changing colors? Otherwise I'm not seeing anything!"

I am watching Pirates-Nationals on the SportsNet Pittsburgh feed, and the difference in grey tops and bottoms for the Buccos is VERY APPARENT. 

I cannot emphasize enough how wrong of a take that is. Is the Thunder logo a bit generic? Yeah, like egregiously generic. 

But there's a different between stylistically being off and what the Rockets logo is, which is slapping an existing logo on top of some haphazardly thrown together graphic just to retroactively meet a league requirement. 

If anyone on these boards had to actually watch someone make that terrible rendering and then just place a scaled-down Rockets logo on it, you would think it's an April Fool's joke. 

That Thunder logo, whatever you may think of it, took some actual graphic design skills. Not a lot. It's pretty bad. But that Rockets logo is on an entirely different level of bad. 

Getting ahead of this now: 

Sacletics

1 hour ago, DCarp1231 said:

 

Are there any recent examples in other pro sports leagues of teams having uniforms literally not available before the season?