Jump to content

-Akronite-

Members
  • Posts

    1,255
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by -Akronite-

  1. I like the gold outline because it creates consistency with the logo. If they use the black version anywhere else, it still has gold rather than missing a team color. And the three outlines matches the number of outlines on the gold version of the logo.
  2. The script on the chest is cool. The idea of black/dark pants is cool. And piping could help in a modern template. Everything else I disagree with. The collars are obvious, but the SOX on the cap is inferior to their current logo AND is a complete mismatch with the chest script. The untucked look is sloppy as well. And the sox themselves are fine but nothing special.
  3. But you gotta have the guys off the bench wearing jerseys and not warmup jackets. Cause that Tor/Tex brawl has Rangers with red caps and blue jackets muddling the fight.
  4. From a distance the new look is beautiful but the white and black made the old look pop better, and I don't like the extra gray number outline or the boring striping pattern with the unnecessary wordmark. My only real issue with the previous set was the lack of silver in the primary logo, since black is a the third color. Works on the silver helmet but not on it's own. Can people let me know if this is unpopular- While I would agree that the Brewers need to pick an identity and stick to it, this: is still an awesome look. Fauxbacks and extra colors being thrown in are hit-or-miss at best and this isn't an upgrade over the old logo colors, but I don't blame them for trying this cause it looks sweet as hell.
  5. OMG I always wondered why they DIDN'T use navy in the striping... But very glad they went with "Cleveland."
  6. It's really nice but you gotta especially respect it because it prevents the slippery slope of over-wearing the alt as many teams do.
  7. I don't like it when teams just have logos on sleeve and the old pewter was ugly, so I agree. But I also go even further to LIKING the current look. Other than the numbers the new set is an upgrade IMO, which I've posted before. The larger logo is awesome, all the logos are improved, and the pants stripes are cool rather than boring. Chrome facemask is pointless but facemasks are one of those details that people go nuts about that I don't care about at all (for instance, the Browns have been white, gray, and brown and I've liked them all). I also don't mind the Jags current look. It's maybe my favorite look of theirs but they need to balance their colors better and get rid of the stupid helmet (that's the only egregious part of the look, which I totally get hating relentlessly). I wish they focused on their "teal" like many others. Also, the JAGS shield is awesome. Shields are great (ironically, not a fan of the Cavs shield, but that's because of the use of black).
  8. What's the one on the right? I know I know! Shazam is blue!
  9. Side by side the navy version looks SO much better. The only problem with the Pats identity is their messy uniforms that are really dated but also haven't changed since the franchise became immaculate. Pretty unfortunate since they have beautiful throwbacks.
  10. Notes above. I'm on board with a lot of your opinion actually.
  11. Please God don't let this happen, but the best move IMO would be to have them all fitted for thumbs.
  12. The Cubs example is kind of funny though since that town has 2 baseball teams.
  13. I value geographic loyalty over having spent some time arbitrarily rooting for some other team. If you rooted for a team because you had no local choice, it's fair for you to switch you primary fanhood to a new, local team. If you feel you really invested in a franchise and feel a part of that fanhood, feel free to stick with the team you already had, but that kinda thing doesn't work for me. I'm not a big hockey guy but if Cleveland got a team (again heh) I'd swap from Columbus immediately. But I'm not really invested in any sports that don't have teams in Cleveland so it's hard to really match up the situation. I will admit that it took me a long time to start valuing identities even if I hated the team/city.
  14. I like that. Especially if a team doesn't have a ring yet, makes sense to have a banner to list all the years you reached a certain milestone, like division titles.
  15. Pants without some sort of stripe never works for me. Those gold pants are duds without a stripe, looks like a modern college football design. The bright yellow version looks so much better, even though I like both color schemes.
  16. How is this superior? Looks like the only difference is the pants and the stripeless gold is far worse than the whites IMO. I have very little issue with the St. Louis look as long as they aren't monochrome blue.
  17. Sorry to play another round of "is that unpopular?" but IS THAT UNPOPULAR?
  18. I can totally understand the argument that the Falcons uniforms are a dated mess, even though they don't bother me all that much. The logo, however, is a clear a upgrade and proper modernization. They don't need to change it, I find it so much less dated than the old logo. I'd put anybody clinging to it in nearly the same category as anyone that prefers the old Arizona Cardinals logo.
  19. While the Vegas logo doesn't historically represent knights very accurately, as a logo is it league's better than every single cartoony piece of garbage posted above. Their main problem was picking boring as colors. The logo is kinda cool.
  20. My only issue with the I logo is that it represents the mascot and not the city. Wouldn't mind if they replaced Wahoo with the I and started using it on home caps but kept the C on the road, though. Not sure of the right direction for a brand new Indians logo outside of changing the name.
  21. Being from Northeast Ohio (per my username), I always pronounced it like "cran." I only ever heard it as either "cran" or "cray-on." Never heard crown before, odd. Also, the draw/drawer thing is funny. Some people, from more rural settings, might say "drawr," as in "I'm gonna drawr something," ADDING an R for no reason. But growing up we never mixed up draw and drawer because we pronounced the latter to rhyme with "roar." Also, what's up with New Yorkers saying "on line" instead of "in line." "I'm gonna get on line for the tickets." "Next on line please." WHAT? Oh, and a lot of people here say "soda" even though it's pronounced "pop."
  22. I think they are certainly underrated. One issues, though it's not that big of a deal, is that they use an R in the middle instead of an H. I prefer when teams use letters representing a city rather than the nickname. The fact that the vertical lines are rockets already says rockets, so use an H. It's the same issues I have with the Bengals B logo. If they used a similar font to create a C logo it's be way cooler (plus the Bengal head is great and should be the primary anyway). Some teams, like the A's, can get away with.
  23. Maybe use an example that matches because those two helmets look nothing alike. The giant logo is my favorite part. It makes up for the lack of stripe, where most stripeless helmets bore me. I also agree that the Bucs jerseys are not that bad. In fact, I'd say they are good with a couple changes away from great. AND a solid upgrade from the previous set. The old jersey was boring and I find the old pewter ugly. The worst part of the old set, the alternate logo on the sleeves, remains unfortunately.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.