• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by henburg

  1. 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. 

  2. 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.

  3. 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. 

  4. 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.  

  5. 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-







  6. 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. 

  7. 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.)

  8. 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" 😛

    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. 

  9. 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. 


  10. 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 “Kraken” and not run “Release the Kraken!” 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.

  11. 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’t understand why “Sockeyes” sounds minor league, just because there isn’t currently a professional team with the name? Sounds a lot more “classic” 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 “hear” 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. 

  12. 9 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

    And a :censored:ty dead meme from 2009 isn't "super antiquated sounding"?


    The end goal of a brand is ideally longevity, not capitalizing on an Internet meme that died eons ago. Why should you name a professional team for a dead meme with no local connections when you could go for any number of superior alternatives that won't be dating your team horribly from conception, won't sound really bad against any other team in the league and doesn't come off as roller hockey-level tryhard "kewl"?


    This is why I despise the name "Kraken"; people defend it not by giving really convincing reasons it'd be the best name, but by pointing to a dead meme and stating that it'd be cool for people to be able to run it 30 million miles further into the goddamn dirt by the time the team's inaugural season opener even comes around.


    "Release the Kraken is cool!" In 2009, yeah, but it's 2020, it's been like 10 years since "Release the Kraken" was ever a culturally relevant thing and by the time the team's even close to hitting the ice they'd be sporting a dead meme for a name that a fair amount of people dislike due to it sounding amateurish and tryhard-cool and which has very tenuous ties to the city they're actually playing in.


    I don't think most people even remember Clash of the Titans, and that's definitely not what people are pointing to as evidence that it's a good nickname. You could argue that the film along with Pirates of the Caribbean strengthened its place in pop culture, but the historical origin transcends that I think as evidenced by the fact that people still recognize the creature. 


    9 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

    Naming the team "Kraken" would be like naming a team in Phoenix the "Phoenix Polar Bears". Are there some polar bears in Phoenix? Sure, in zoos. But is Phoenix known for polar bears? Not really.


    Does Seattle have giant cephalopods? Sure. But are they anything close to a "kraken"? No, not really, especially since the mythological Kraken isn't ever really described as a cephalopod, more like an enormous whale or fish; which means the Sharks or Canucks, two division rivals, would then have more mythologically-accurate logos then the actual Kraken team.


    I'm really not following your logic here, those two aren't really comparable situations at all. More apt comparisons would be naming a new team the Seattle Dragons, the New Mexico Aliens, or the Oklahoma Thunderbirds because all of those nicknames still have some connections to the area whereas Polar Bears and Phoenix couldn't be more separate. I think that the presence of Cephalopods and a history of seafarers gives Seattle more than enough of a connection to the potential nickname.

  13. 24 minutes ago, IceCap said:

    Yeah, but as stated earlier the original folklore came from the Norse in the North Atlantic and referred to what sounds like a giant whale or fish. Giant squids didn't become associated with it until the 18th century. And even then we're talking mostly about sailors' tales in the Atlantic. 


    It's been pointed out that there is a large population of Scandinavian descent in the Seattle area justifying an old Norse name (ala Minnesota Vikings) but still. The name "Kraken" in the Pacific Northwest, using a squid as a logo, just seems like it's a few times removed from the folklore origins to have any real meaning. 

    Also it kind of treads on part of the Red Wings' schtick.  


    The 18th century is plenty old enough, in fact the New Jersey Devils name comes from an 18th century legend as well. Granted the local tie-in is stronger in that case, but the Scandinavian presence is strong enough to justify it in my mind. The PNW region also shares some similarities with Scandinavia itself so it doesn't feel out of place to me in that regard. 


    As far as the Redwings are concerned, I don't think it steps on their toes too badly. If they incorporated the octopus heavily in their branding I could see where you're coming from, but I don't feel that it's status as a fan prop disqualifies another team from using another mascot in the same biological family. 


    28 minutes ago, the admiral said:


    Sure I can. It's the Evergreen State, therefore the Evergreen Hockey Club. Go Greens. Marketing a big grey blob that goes ORP ORP ORP, now that's a challenge.


    I didn't say it was unjustified, just that it's super uninspiring.


    Evergreens is a name that gets scoffed at anywhere outside of this board, it's not even rumored as a contender for a reason. 

  14. 1 minute ago, IceCap said:

    The problem is that it risks sounding dated in a few years. It's not really smart to chase short term notoriety at the expense of the long-term viability of the brand. This is a team that, ideally, will be around in a hundred years. Is naming them after a meme that's already dead by 2020 really the best way forward?


    That's a fair point I suppose, but is it really only known as a meme? I don't necessarily think of it that way, although I can't speak for everyone. Being a feature of folklore grants it some permanence IMO. 

  15. If you breakdown a lot of these reported candidates, it becomes pretty clear why they wouldn't be chosen. Evergreens, Rainiers, Metropolitans, Emeralds, and Sockeyes are all super antiquated sounding and lack a lot of national recognition or appeal. It feels like they may have functioned as a fine name for an Original 6 team, but in 2020? Way too niche or uninspiring. Can you imagine trying to rally people around the Evergreens? It's just not a great sell. 


    Sea Lions is decent, but not super enthralling. I would be alright with it but it doesn't quite flow as well as it should.  


    All of this considered, I really do think Kraken would be the smartest move, especially for a new team. Even for those who don't like the name, it's provoking way more of our attention and emotion than any of the other candidates because of how singular it is. It's a cool mythical creature that is super unique but still recognizable in our culture. The potential for cool branding is huge and I really hope that the new franchise takes advantage of that moving forward. 


  16. 1 hour ago, dont care said:

    That’s because they weren’t metallic...

    It doesn't use dazzle fabric or anything but it's clearly a vegas/old gold, not yellow. 

  17. The NFC uniforms are a huge W simply because they actually managed to make a metallic gold jersey look good. I loved the slightly more saturated shade that they went with. 

  18. On 1/15/2020 at 11:41 AM, Lights Out said:


    To be fair, those uniforms were already ruined before they changed them. The yoke had been reduced to more of a racing stripe that was barely visible from certain angles. The collar didn't contrast anymore. And they always wore the worst possible combos that made the helmet stick out like a sore thumb.


    The new look is fixable with some tweaks. There was no salvaging this mess of a uniform:






    but for real, I get the hate for the new uniforms. They're garish and the elements don't particularly flow well together. That said, these old uniforms were NOT GOOD and they were never considered good (until the change) for a reason. It's like torture for me watching everybody praise this look all of a sudden after it received nothing but hate for the greater part of a decade. The new look didn't get it quite right but it's fixable. 

  19. I think that the uniforms were executed really well and that the matchup was very visually pleasing. Both teams payed a nice tribute to hockey history while still looking like themselves, so that's a win. On the more negative side, I think that leaning so heavily into the "HeeHaw" aesthetic felt a bit patronizing as a person from the southeast. I get why they did it, but it could have easily been toned down quite a bit. 

  20. Do the Panthers even really need TV numbers anymore? They've shrunk so much over time that they're definitely not functional in any manner anyway. If you really think about it, the entire concept of TV numbers almost feels obsolete now regardless.

  21. 43 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

    I'd say the all blue have become "Seahawks Football" over the past 18 years. I'd also say that living here for that entire period, my experience has been that the fans here love the all blue (while hopeful for a time when they can wear the throwback silver helmet uni for a few times a season). If the rest of the country doesn't like them, I don't see that as being something the Seahawks should concern themselves with.


    I also think it's dumb to make a blanket statement like "monochrome isn't professional". You don't have to like it, but monochrome has been around long enough now that I think it's more than just a fad. With the Seahawks in particular, I think that their mono-navy look is essentially iconic in the NFL today, and ditching that brand in exchange for a lukewarm throwback set would be all kinds of backwards. 

  22. Honestly, I don't think it's such a horrendously ugly mark on its own. It may be a little simple to the point of dull, but that's really the worst I could say about it visually. However, the real problems with it stem from how tone deaf the whole thing is in general. Doubleday and Cartwright is a good studio (they did well with the Milwaukee Bucks rebrand), so it's hard for me to believe that nobody could have foreseen the Latin Kings thing or just the fact that the previous badge was so loved, but that's clearly where we are now. That old badge was one of the "iconic" MLS logos that I always closely associated with the league, so it's strange to think it's gone now. It definitely needed new life, but this solution really looks like a mistake.