SFGiants58

Members
  • Content Count

    6,203
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    51

Everything posted by SFGiants58

  1. Meh, I guess it's ok to have a little fun in this regard. Just as long as you don't reduce the complex history to just "branding" and think critically about the implications of equating nationalism and branding, you should be good. Please tell me that you acknowledge some of the unfortunate implications of equating those two.
  2. It’s kind of a dangerous way of interpreting history, when you think about it. Reducing the founding of the United States to “creating a brand” is just equating nationalism and marketing. By that logic, you could argue that all sorts of nations “created a brand” through ideas, such as the oppression of minorities, physical territories, and religious ideologies. That’s a silly extension of “branding theory.” We historians have to take it seriously, and saying things like that misses so many nuances (e.g., the founders were hemorrhaging money from failed land speculation ventures and facing insurrection from urban workers). When people hear “creating a brand,” they will probably ignore the troubling undercurrents that brand may have. I really don’t want to bust your balls over this (you’re a really talented guy, and you’ve done wonders with the Dolphins’ branding and media presence), but ideas like the ones above are both flippant and a little anti-intellectual.
  3. So, in other terms: I like your work, but believing in a statement like that set you up perfectly for a Rick & Morty copypasta. You may think Bryan was being insightful, but I think it's cheesy and a little insulting to the nuances of the history. But that's just me as a historian.
  4. That would be @McCarthy's logo. It would be wise to ask him for permission first.
  5. Am I the only guy who thinks that this helmet should have been given the time of day for an ultra-modern redesign? I prefer the traditional white helmet, but this would have been a good way to mix things up.
  6. I’m a Sharks fan, and I believe that they’ve never had a top-notch look. While I like the first jersey set and color scheme (while also maintaining a soft spot for the fin set), I’ve never liked any of their logos. They’re either too cartoony, too dull, or just off-putting.
  7. Perfection! It’s generic trash, and I love generic trash more than something that’s quirky and fits with the team’s retro brand! Also, don’t forget that the Jets have to have the 1980s logo. We have to memorialize the look they wore when they were irrelevant/beyond terrible.
  8. The Spurs’ look depends on minimalism in the color scheme, with the black/silver/white color scheme. Dumping a bunch of pastels in it seemed like a half-hearted attempt at putting some “local color” into their look. It totally goes against the organizational philosophy under Popovich as well.
  9. Here’s the Diamondbacks’ 20th anniversary patch, with throwback dates!
  10. Striping consistency matters only when we say it matters. If the hegemon doesn’t want it, the hegemon will criticize it. Don’t you know we can’t stand consistency if we didn’t grow up with it?
  11. To be fair, Target Field is in Minneapolis. It kind of makes sense for the team to wear the road jersey of the St. Paul Saints while playing in Minneapolis. It’s still silly, but a little less silly when considering the nature of the Twin Cities and the historical Millers-Saints rivalry.
  12. The '83-'86 set translated well to black/grey/white. My only complaint would be that the numbers don't have outlines, but that's a problem I have with the original. I also like the bonus concepts, but I feel like the red alt might look better with a white stripe and blue outlines, to tie it into the cap. Good work.
  13. I’m a 1993 kid. Matte helmets look like processed clown feces in football. Baseball, on the other hand, has matte helmets that look good (helmets should look as much like caps as possible).
  14. Agreed. The Jets are the team that should rock Kelly Green. It would be a good opportunity to modernize the sleeve/shoulder design a little and pay better tribute to the Namath era. Take a look at this @oldschoolvikings concept: That’s beautiful.
  15. 1919, '25, '26: These translated well into the modern color scheme. I too wish they stuck with the crossed socks. 1932-34: I like that you kept the yellow bats, and I find that the grey horseshoes look good. The 1932 cap is fantastic (I'd like a '47 brand edition). That 1934 road uniform is top-notch in the modern colors, and could easily work with the modern set. 1936-42: The '36 home jersey looks good in monochrome. I like the grey-heavy "SOX" jersey, but I'm not keen on the grey-heavy "White Sox" script. That's less a problem with your design and more a problem with the original red-heavy look. 1949-59: The minimalist "Sox" turned out well in monochrome and the grey worked well with the 1959 designs. 1969: I also love the 1969 uniforms! It's good to see them in black/grey/white. Similarly, the 1972 set translated well into the new color scheme. 1976: The "circus" set looks pretty spiffy in black/grey/white. I like it more than the navy originals. It's really cool to see the White Sox's uniform history in their now-classic color scheme, and I'm looking forward to seeing your take on the 1983-90 uniforms.
  16. The N-Star with Black is one of the worst looks in NHL history for me, up there with the Thrashers’ Edge redesign and the Canucks’ yellow jerseys. I get why people like it, but I think it’s a giant mess of things that just don’t go together. Still, the best uniform set in Minnesota hockey history is this: ...and it’s not even close.
  17. But the Kelly Green and the N-star looked like garbage by the end of that set’s life. The oversized drop shadows, black breezers, and thin/thick black stripe inserts and outlines were a mess. It’s no surprise that they didn’t sell well enough to justify keeping them. I don’t understand why anybody likes this mess: The ‘90s look (before the dark green) was honestly refreshing after the awkward BFBS bastardization of the old set. Besides, the Gunds and the Timberwolves (can’t stress the latter enough - North Stars fans should hate the Timberwolves for not letting them play at the Target Center) had screwed the franchise hard before Green got the team.
  18. The gradient was way more original and good-looking than the Padres ripoff fauxback. I like the new faux-1998 cap, but I do worry that the navy might clash with the wordmark/numbers on the uniform. I guess you you could make the argument that black was pretty minimal on the lettering (compared to purple and the gradient). Still, it’ll be good to see it again.
  19. He helped to revitalize the organization after the near-move to Tampa Bay and the lead up to AT&T Park. It’s a bit of a wash.
  20. Several, yes. Two conference losses (1983, ‘90), two divisional losses (1986, ‘87), and one Wild Card defeat (‘85) were their losses. The Young-led Niners lost three conference championships and three times in the divisional round.
  21. Congrats, Eagles. You did it! I'm just disappointed that this win means that they'll never switch back to Kelly Green.
  22. It looks like the bear is either being electrocuted or going Super Saiyan, yet with a doofy look on his face.