IceCap

Moderators
  • Content Count

    46,161
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    265

Everything posted by IceCap

  1. I'd disagree. That above design would have been really fun at the time but it would have been dated by 2002. What they're wearing now is pretty timeless.
  2. Hello Seattle sports fan! Welcome to the cavalcade of bad and baffling decisions that is the National Hockey League! Please find time to check out the Money Pit affectionately nicknamed "the Arizona Coyotes."
  3. I think people would describe it as "powder blue," as that seems to be the default name for any blue lighter than royal in sports.
  4. Yep. The Wild, Texans, Jags, and Panthers all had great uniforms on day one, and only the Panthers have had the wherewithal to keep from messing with it. The Texans are the next closest, but they ruined their road look when they stopped pairing red socks with the blue pants. The Panthers are an expansion team that made their modern uniforms their rock-solid identity. It's the closest a modern expansion team's identity has gotten to being "established"* and people want to futz with it. No thanks. The Panthers can look like they look now forever. I don't need them jumping on the five year uni rotation. *the Oklahoma City Thunder are a new team that's made their inaugural look an "established" look, but it's awful.
  5. Carolina's inaugural unis were perfect. The original logo > the updated version. My only complaint is the existence of white pants. They need to wear silver with all three jerseys. Honestly? I find the calls for the Panthers to radically alter their look kind of frustrating. They've kept essentially the same identity since the 1990s, and it's a solid one. Here we have a modern uniform that manages to look good and not seem overdone, and it's only been ever so slightly tweaked since 1995. That should be the standard- a new team gets their look right on the first go and doesn't muck it up. Their expansion cousins in Jacksonville are perfect examples of what happens when you muck it up. The Panthers, though, are the gold standard of a new team establishing a bold new look, and making it their own through commitment to it. It's such a rarity in the Big Four that I want to see their identity stick around as long as possible.
  6. I'd rather they not get so bright as to become garish, thanks.
  7. Yeah the situation in Houston isn't getting fixed until someone (probably the league at this point) pries Easterby out. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to force Cal McNair to sell either.
  8. There's no discount in the world that's going to make that work given Pittsburgh's cap situation.
  9. Yeah. I found that funny about the recent Bucs redesign that reverted to the general design from 1997-2003. They went back to the darker crimson and the shade of orange used in that set, but kept the "updated" pewter from the ill-advised 2014-2019 identity. The reason they gave was that the shiny pewter used from 1997-2013 wasn't doable with Nike's fabrics. Nike- the innovator in athletic wear and supposedly on the bleeding edge of their field- couldn't replicate a shade of pewter Wilson Athletics managed to put together in 1997.
  10. I would argue the red is too dark. I get adding black- the throwbacks with black drop shadow were popular after they wore them in Super Bowl XXIX. Still, don't darken the red while adding black. One or the other. Doing both creates an unnecessarily dark and muddied look, in my opinion.
  11. I don't know if it'll be this season, but at some point this identity will have a BFBS set and it will (rightly) be ridiculed.
  12. The Los Angeles Rams and Los Angeles Chargers both unveiled their new uniforms last season. As both teams are more or less locked into those identities for at least four more seasons we no longer really need a "LA NFL Branding" thread. It was made to highlight the teams' new brands after moving to LA and it did that. The thread is mostly talking in circles now, so let's shut'er down. We can use this thread if either team makes any changes or introduces any new unis for 2021.
  13. I am, and I'll echo him. Keep this focused on uniform and logo design.
  14. Two things. The first is that "a lot of people have an opinion I don't like" doesn't mean it's groupthink. There was a similar conversation here a year or so ago and I used the example of an art gallery. Say we're all at one, and there's some post-modern piece up on the wall. Maybe you like it, but the four other people around you dislike it. You're not being "talked down" or "surrounded by groupthink" in that situation. All that's happening is that you've got five people looking at a painting, and four dislike it. I know that it's not always fun to have the minority opinion- and sometimes that makes you feel like you've gotta fight for it- but holding the minority viewpoint doesn't mean those in the majority are "wrong" or "misguided" in any way. The second is what @BBTV said and deleted, but which I'll say. There are hundreds of pages of people explaining why they don't like the Rams' uniforms. You are not obliged to agree with them, but you can't say that you don't understand at this point. People have explained why.
  15. That's all well and good except, at least in my case, you seem to misunderstanding and (I hope) unintentionally misrepresenting my point. You sometimes come off that like one guy who would post questions like "how could anyone like grey facemasks?" or "how could anyone like the Bucs' creamsicle uniforms?" before badgering people who disagreed with him. I get that 1) the Rams are your team and 2) you like their new uniforms, but you don't need to interrogate everyone who says they don't like them.
  16. Gradients aren't new. Did you forget the 90s happened? No, not at all. Please bother to read my posts if you're going to respond to them. Drop shadow numbers have been around for so long they're an accepted part of traditional sports aesthetics. Multiple classic teams use or have used them. Gradients came about in the 90s, had a brief run as a trendy gimmick, and then vanished until Nike decided to resurrect the trend with the Rams and Falcons' unis. That's not what I said. What I said is that drop shadow has been around for so long it's part of the visual DNA of sports design. Gradient hasn't. Therefore one is just a style of font, the other is a gimmick.
  17. This is such an odd opinion. It's a practice jersey. It's the sort of thing fans like us should love because it allows teams to do these promotions without compromising the on-ice look. Something like this is totally harmless.
  18. Also the Chiefs stopped the Bucs on 4th and 1 in the second quarter, negating a long drive where the Bucs came away with zero points. That was the time for the Chiefs to get going. Put together a long drive, get back in the game. And indeed they did get a first down to get off their own goal line. It felt for a hot second like the Chiefs were going to make the Bucs pay for their arrogance going for it on forth down and score. Instead they stalled out in the face of an amazing defence and failed to take advantage of a turnover on downs. The Chiefs just never got into high gear. And while you can blame some of that on the refs (I'd argue most of those calls are defensible) a lot of the times the Chiefs just...failed to put it together.
  19. Drop shadow has been used in sports since at least the 1930. Classic teams like the Cleveland Browns and New York Rangers adopted that style in the 40s (the Rangers still use it, along with the Lakers). Gradient only came about in the 1990s, when sublimation technology took off. And, in fact, was associated with some of the worst eyesore uniforms of the 1990s. So @DG_ThenNowForever isn't exactly right. Drop shadow has been around a very long time, and gradient only showed up during what is perhaps the most obnoxious phase of uniform design ever. Now maybe you or him or someone else wants to go "that's still arbitrary, who cares when it came around, gimmicky is gimmicky!" I would say, though, that like it or not? Time and tradition have meaning. The "big four" sports have their own aesthetic language and engrained traditions of what their uniforms should be, and the first half of the 20th century is when all of that codified across all of them. And drop shadows were around then. Drop shadows are- whether you like it or not- just an accepted part of pro sports' traditional visual language. Gradients are some gimmicky cooked up in the 90s. Maybe you think that's unfair or arbitrary, but it is how it is. Also you never told me how "gradient" = "LA glitz." I reiterate my threat to close this thread down if I see any more "people only wanted the throwbacks because that's what pa saw them wear" nonsense.
  20. The WM 29 buyrate was down compared to XXVIII. The "once in a lifetime...twice!" angle kind of backfired. The safe play is one match, and not to get greedy
  21. Drop shadow is far less gimicky than gradient. I'm not sure how gradient= "LA glitz" either.
  22. Exactly. It's clear @DnBronc doesn't watch pro wrestling because if he did he'd realize how silly the "NFL IS RIGGED!" conspiracy theory is. At WrestleMania 18 (or X-8, to use the parlance of the times) they had the Rock face Hulk Hogan. The two had a classic match and the Rock won because why wouldn't he? The Rock was the younger star, insanely marketable, and poised to be the face of the company for the long haul (that he'd go even further and become a legit movie star within a year was something no one foresaw at the time). At WrestleManias XXVII-29 the Rock returned to engage in a three year feud with John Cena. They had two great matches and Cena eventually prevailed. Why wouldn't he? The Rock was the old timer and Cena was the new face of the company. Point is the NFL had a Super Bowl between the best QB of the past twenty years and the next great QB talent, who has proven very marketable. If the NFL were fixing games this would have been a shootout where Mahomes played just well enough to overcome Brady. They would have shaken hands after the game as fireworks went off, and Mahomes would have gone on to become the new face of the NFL. That's how any competently booked promotion would have done it. Instead Brady's Bucs scored four TDs and a field goal while Mahomes got swallowed whole by a Bucs defence out for blood. If the NFL were pro wrestling we'd all be ing at the bookers for burying Mahomes, the new up and coming face who could have used the rub. Because "Brady and Bucs Go Through Brees, Rogers, Mahomes, and Heinicke" seems a bit silly. Maybe if the Football Team had kept Dwayne Haskins