• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by henburg

  1. 8 hours ago, IceCap said:

    Kurt Warner is retired. Larry Fitzgerald will be soon. Kliff Kingsbury might flame out in the NFL (the statistics re: college coach success in the NFL aren't kind). Who knows if Kyler Murray will live up to his potential? Even if he does? He's the one trashing the current unis ūüėú


    So the fact that you've only bothered to think about the Cardinals for the past fifteen years doesn't mean the past fifteen years is all there is. When Fitzgerald, Kingsbury, Warner, and Murray are all faded memories, what are you left with? The oldest team in the league.


    I mean sure, if you take away all of the significant Arizona Cardinals history that I mentioned, you would be left with the stuff that you like. Specifically, stuff that represented a team that played a lot more years of their years far away from Arizona than in it.


    8 hours ago, IceCap said:

    And as we've been over, a modern stadium not mean a team can't look traditional.


    I don't particularity care ūü§∑‚Äć‚ôāÔłŹ

    They're the oldest team in the league. They should look like a fairly straightforward football team. Let newer teams like the Falcons experiment with looks that will look dated five years after they debut.


    I care. Context and history are important things that organizations have to understand in order to make an effective brand for their football team. For example, the Cardinals being the oldest team in the league means absolutely nothing for the people of Arizona. It's a piece of trivia, not something that should trump all else in determining a good art direction for them. 


    Not to mention, the Falcons were founded in 1966. Not as old as the Cardinals but not newer by any means. Yet, that doesn't define your perception of them due to a lot of factors similar to the ones I laid out for the Cardinals. That's essentially what things like the stadium comment are pointing out, not a literal rule that teams in modern stadiums have to wear modern uniforms. 

  2. I don't really see the appeal in giving the Cardinals a traditional look again. Despite being the oldest team in the league, there really isn't this rich iconic history that they would be referencing. I could get on board with the direction more if there was this great brand recognition with the Cardinals of old and everybody associated their uniforms with iconic football moments, but outside of Pat Tillman that's far from the reality. In reality, they're a modern team with legends like Larry Fitzgerald and Kurt Warner that helped really put them on the map over the past decade. Going forward, they're running what is probably the most cutting edge offense in the NFL lead by Kliff Kingsbury and Kyler Murray. They play games in a super futuristic (spaceship-like) stadium. None of these things make me think that returning to a super old school look makes much sense.


    Outside of those considerations and without having the ability to even lean on things like nostalgia or rich tradition, you're ultimately left with a really dull uniform that is just not aesthetically-pleasing enough to justify bringing back from the dead IMO.




    Side note, if a team tried to tack a giant state flag on their sleeves in 2020, this board would be coming for their head.

  3. They're definitely kind of weird with the gradient treatment that reminds you more of a tech logo than a sports logo, but they're not as bad as social media would lead you to believe. Comparisons to things like the Chargers and Angelo State of all things are nothing more than lazy cheap shots that aren't all that accurate, especially considering that ASU was just appropriating the Rams helmet logo in the first place. 


    Looking at the positives, they nailed the color scheme and the updated ram head has a nice classic feel to it that feels much more like the LA Rams. It could potentially use more refinement in the face to better match the primary, but it still looks nice enough. Outside of that, I've been looking at the primary for what feels like two whole days now and I still can't decide if I like it or not. I think that I really enjoy the way that the horn is incorporated into the "A", but the "L" feels much less intentional with how it's just sitting on top of it. Then again, I'm not sure of how else you could make it work, so it just keeps making me feel conflicted feelings. 

  4. The Bucs' current uniforms (and logos) are riddled with problems, but I actually think that the big logo looks great on the helmets. It's unique and it allows the important part of their logo to stand out. I guess I could understand the complaints about the chinstrap/facemask sometimes obscuring the sword, but it doesn't bother me that much. 




    I mean, I just think that these look awesome. Being able to see both flags from the front creates a cool visual as well. 

  5. 2 hours ago, L10nheart404 said:

    This! Lukas had the concept made based on his description, which doesn't means he saw every detail, just that it's accurate of what his eyes saw. There very well could be an orange trim that got unnoticed, or was too hard too see for him. 

    For real, I would't take any uniform mockups based on another person's memory as gospel. I remember everybody panicking online because somebody who got a sneak peak of the Dolphins (at-one-point) new uniforms was mistaking the number outline as black instead of navy. 

  6. I love how you take the time to completely flesh out every project you do, it makes them feel all the more exciting and real. I also feel like one of the few people who's on your side in the whole "Seattle Kraken" situation, but I don't know how you can see work like this and not understand the potential that nickname has.

  7. 7 minutes ago, sisdog said:

    Wonder if that is what the horn will look like on the helmet???

    I would guess so. The logo itself is pretty nice although the horn treatment makes me nervous. The current version is one of those things that has already been pretty much perfected.

  8. 5 hours ago, TenaciousG said:

    How on Earth is this not the primary!?!? It’s like the morons in the board room looked at a bunch of options and purposely chose the worst one.


    It's nice as an accompanying element, but it wouldn't be a good main crest simply for how detailed it is. It would lose all readability when shrunken down, which is really the primary way it would be seen (on a kit). 

  9. 12 hours ago, mcrosby said:

    This is a perfect opportunity to switch the swords under the skull for crossbones. Raiders already have crossed swords, and the TB logo already has a sword. 



    You just made me realize how low-key strange it is that the Buccaneers logo features crossed swords, on a flag being carried by a sword. It's totally unnecessary, and your solution makes so much more sense. I really can't believe that I've never thought about that before. 

  10. 11 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:


    I think most, if not all, the silver/gold teams should go back to dazzle.  I prefer the Eagles in dazzle as well.  If they don't want to or can't make it themselves, Nike could just contract them out to Ripon like they did early on in the deal, 


    I think that certain colors (like Midnight Green as you mentioned) worked well in both fabrics, but matte still holds the edge for me in pretty much every case except for teams with metallic colors. Certain teams in particular really did not benefit from the shiny finish-

    Vince-Young-TitansvsPackers-Nov-2-08.jpgshaun-alexander-of-the-seattle-seahawks- 103866000-miami-dolphins-v-dallas-cowboy


    However, since being corrected that Pewter is not actually a metallic color, I think that one serves as an exception to my rule. 

  11. 2 hours ago, infrared41 said:


    1. We'll see.


    2. And you, whoever you are, take this stuff way too seriously. Don't paint with such a broad brush, chief. 



    Any hostility you're feeling is one-sided. The only point that I'm making is that whether you like the design or not, it will have nothing to do with that phrase. Really, what would you have them say instead? It's just a people-pleasing expression to try and bridge two demographics together, nothing more. 

  12. 2 minutes ago, infrared41 said:


    Somewhere along the way, I read that someone with the Rams said a variation of "respect the past, embrace the future." From that point forward, I knew the Rams were doomed. 


    This phrase is probably used in 90% of all new redesigns, and isn't indicative of anything at all. You guys put way too much stock into marketing jargon and social media lingo.

  13. I actually prefer the matte finish of the newer fabric to the old dazzle fabric 9 times out of 10. Still, teams like the Buccaneers with actual metallic colors really did benefit from that fabric being so popular at the time. If the Bucs asked for that finish specifically, I'm positive that Nike could develop a Vapor Untouchable variation of it. That said, most teams probably just don't notice and don't know to ask. 

  14. 22 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

    Exactly; and the marketing possibilities with "Sockeyes" extend further then just a team name. The arena itself can get nicknames like "The Riverbed", the fanbase can be called "The Shoal", you can promote the team and it's players as having "the heart and endurance of a sockeye salmon swimming upstream", etc.


    Besides, this looks plenty "fierce" enough to work as a mascot, and has enough aggressive qualities to work well for an NHL franchise;



    Not an ounce of this is marketable at all, the team would get laughed at if they embraced any of that. The cultural significance is a decent enough argument, no need to go full tilt on the aquatic biology stuff.  

  15. Very similarly to the AAF, if you cut the side panels off of these sets they'd instantly look 10x cleaner and some would actually be pretty solid. With the XFL in particular, Houston and LA go screwed by these awful clunky notches around the sleeves that represent one of my greatest uniform pet peeves-







  16. Sonic has needed a new logo, but this wasn't the right solution. The shape is less dynamic than before, the font is a total mishmash of ugly letters, and the colors are a little too minimal. What a missed opportunity. 

  17. On 2/3/2020 at 1:01 PM, pianoknight said:


    Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I like the blue and white checkerboard pattern for UK.


    They may have stolen it from Tennessee, but when I think of blue and white checkerboard patterns I immediately think of Secretariat, horse racing and the Kentucky Derby. 




    I don't think the use of the pattern is bad looking in a vacuum, but within the context of being a visual staple for a rival it's an astronomically dumb decision to keep pushing it so hard. 


    (I'm very biased, but still.)

  18. 14 hours ago, IceCap said:


    So that's 23/31 with a local tie-in, 8/31 with generic names.

    So no, a Seattle team named after a mythical creature from the North Atlantic isn't more locally appropriate than "half of the teams in the NHL" ūüėõ

    I appreciate the effort you went to here, it was definitely a hyperbolic statement. Some of your picks are debatable (Anaheim, Calgary) but your overall point is still true. 


    Nontheless, I know you'll still disagree with me but Kraken has enough of a connection (cephalopods, scandinavian population in Seattle) to make your first list. 

  19. Is there some movement of Seattleites clamoring for the team to be named Sockeyes that I'm unaware of? I feel like this board gets so fixated on the name being hyper-localized without considering if it's even good. Obviously local significance is important, but there's a balance you should maintain before overthinking it and becoming too niche/trying too hard. That's my problem with Sockeyes and Evergreens, they're just bad nicknames that feel like they're prioritizing a literal representation of Seattle over being a good mascot for a hockey team.


    Kraken definitely has enough of a local connection to suit Seattle, probably more locally-appropriate than half of the team names in the NHL. 


  20. 5 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

    The entire idea is campy, is the issue. Sure, Kraken may sound cool NOW...but what about 10, 20, 30 years later? Would it still be cool then, or would it be a massively dated reference to a fad that didn't stick? It doesn't have the kind of feel a brand needs if it wants to stick around for a long period of time. There's a reason the longest-lasting teams don't have names that are just dedicated to referencing a meme.


    Oh, it'd maybe be funny to scream out once or twice at a game...but after that, then what? Then the team's stuck with a name that most of their core fanbase doesn't even care for. And that's the danger of trend-chasing names; what happens if the fanbase doesn't attach to the name?

    So can Sockeyes, and it both much more locally relevant and doesn't have the stench of a dead meme littered all over it. A salmon, teal and black Native art-themed Sockeyes identity could easily be one of the best of the entire NHL for me.


    I still think that the historical origins of the creature and name overshadow any meme-relevance there is to it. I don't see how it could go out of style when it really isn't like it's some flavor of the month fad created solely on social media, it's a legend with legitimate roots. Besides, I'd argue the team using it would inherently grant the nickname permanence in pop culture anyway, allowing it to instantly become the first thing you think of when seeing the word Kraken. I agree on the importance of longevity, but I just don't get how a cheesy movie from the 2000's featuring a Kraken disqualifies this creature of folklore from being a mascot. From my perspective, people are attaching immediately to Kraken because it's so much more of an electrifying name that brings up really fantastical imagery with huge potential in branding. 


    Sockeyes on the other hand are not a universally known and not super captivating even if you have an understanding of what they are. That's an immediate hurdle that the team would face in engaging fans. Besides that, the punny nature of the name grants a sound of antiquity to it that doesn't play well in its favor either. Every time I see it, I can't help but read it in a goofy golden-age broadcaster voice because that's what it sounds like to me. I just think that it's so much more underwhelming than Kraken, especially from a marketing perspective. 


    5 hours ago, king_mahalo said:

    Seriously? You think they would name the team ‚ÄúKraken‚ÄĚ and not run ‚ÄúRelease the Kraken!‚ÄĚ into¬†the ground?¬†

    Fans would be pissed! From what I’ve seen on social media it’s pretty much the only reason the majority of fans like the name Kraken. 


    If the biggest concern with Kraken is an association with a popular phrase, then I don't think the team is losing too much sleep over it.

  21. 25 minutes ago, king_mahalo said:

    The reference to fighting in hockey in the name Sockeyes is only gimmicky if the team plays it up. They could ignore it entirely. They probably would, honestly. 

    I don‚Äôt understand why ‚ÄúSockeyes‚ÄĚ sounds minor league, just because there isn‚Äôt currently a professional team with the name? Sounds a lot more ‚Äúclassic‚ÄĚ than Wild. Or Jazz. Or Golden Knights.¬†

    and I have no idea how the name¬†Totems relates to male genitalia. (Outside of the general shape of a totem pole, but he said ‚Äúhear‚ÄĚ implying audio jokes, not visual jokes)


    Just as the name "Kraken" wouldn't reference an old meme in any form or fashion visually despite everybody here fixating on that for some reason. The team has mentioned reaching out to indigenous artists for inspiration in the past, so imagine a team centered around a giant squid mascot depicted in a traditional Native American or even nordic art style. There's nothing campy about that to me, in fact I think it could look really amazing.


    Even if they went a different route visually, it seems like you guys expect them to roll out rage comic jerseys or something. I think they're going to take themselves seriously.