• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by IceCap

  1. 3 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:


    The Kraken could have sold a billion jerseys over Christmas 2020. I have no idea why they're waiting until the fall. They lost an entire seasons worth of holiday spending.

    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." 

  2. 28 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

    I was just thinking that if you ask a layman what color the Panthers are, I feel like the default would be teal. Especially in the vain of a mid-90s color option.

    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.

  3. 2 hours ago, ManillaToad said:


    Expansion teams starting with a great uniform then changing it over and over again is such a sad thing to see, and it happens constantly. Never understood it

    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. 

  4. 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. 

  5. 14 minutes ago, NYRFan said:

    I agree with your hot take. Especially in regard to the Leafs. I feel a team using a monochromatic color scheme needs to punch up the color a bit. 

    I'd rather they not get so bright as to become garish, thanks. 

  6. 10 hours ago, rams80 said:

    How much good would an overall rebrand do though, it's not like the Oilers set the world on fire except for maybe those times when they had Earl Campbell charge headlong into the Steel Curtain defense.  (And Campbell can't walk now, so, welp....)

    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. 

  7. 10 hours ago, dont care said:

    Exactly, and I don’t see him taking a discount unless it’s to be with his brothers

    There's no discount in the world that's going to make that work given Pittsburgh's cap situation.


    17 hours ago, BBTV said:

    But isn’t O’Brien responsible for some of those? Getting rid of him should be viewed as a positive, and remove some of those from that list. At least one. 

    So apparently BOB was just a symptom of the disease, not the cause. Jack Easterby's been slowly strangling this team for a few years now, and it's only recently become obvious.


    On one hand it's fascinating to watch one man with no qualifications bend a multi-billion dollar organization to his will...on the other hand he's pretty much destroyed what was once a consistent playoff contender.


    Honestly? As much as it would :censored: with my preferences for how team history is handled? @FiddySicks and @rams80 are right. The NFL needs to Ctl-Z the whole Texans franchise. Bring back the Oilers, banish Easterby to the Megachurch circuit, and we can all move on.

  8. 1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

    The Saints aren't forced to wear Nike's pet fabrics.

    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. 

  9. 7 hours ago, BBTV said:


    That uniform is superior to what they wear now in every way except the extra logo on the sleeve.

    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. 

  10. 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.

  11. 3 hours ago, colortv said:

    It's just that most of this thread since the introduction seems to be a groupthink situation with most people posting "they suck, the Rams have no idea what they're doing, worst uniforms ever made, the world needs to burn them etc" and I'm just curious as to the actual logic behind that because I don't think they're "horrible". 

    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.

  12. 17 minutes ago, colortv said:

    I'm just asking for the logic behind people's thinking.

    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. 

  13. 18 minutes ago, colortv said:


    Everything, good or bad, whether it becomes traditional or not, starts "at some point".

    Gradients aren't new. Did you forget the 90s happened? 


    19 minutes ago, colortv said:

    So basically, "I don't like gradients".

    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. 


    21 minutes ago, colortv said:

    Just because drop shadow has been around longer has nothing to do with whether it will be retained long term or not if the fans take a liking to it.

    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. 

  14. 11 hours ago, Bayne said:

    It feels like such a cynical ploy to tap into the Chinese demographic to me. Designed practice sweaters are just such a waste of time in my opinion. 

    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. 


    58 minutes ago, Bayne said:

    To me, they're the Canucks. Focus on that and don't pander to fan groups. Maybe something like the St Patrick's Day dress up doesn't annoy me as much because at least it ties into their brand.

    They do, during the game. When such things matter. Who cares what they wear during warmups? You don't even see those unless you're at the game. 


    58 minutes ago, Bayne said:

    To me, they're the Canucks. Focus on that and don't pander to fan groups. Maybe something like the St Patrick's Day dress up doesn't annoy me as much because at least it ties into their brand.

    Granted at least the St. Patrick's Day stuff is green but other than that...? Nah. The only team that can justify St. Patrick's Day stuff as "brand relevant" are the Maple Leafs thanks to the St. Pats throwbacks. 


    Not that it matters. St. Patrick's Day, Chinese New Years, Hockey Fights Cancer, military appreciation night...all of these gimmicky practice jerseys are fine. They're worn for a short period of time before most fans even tune in, and the on-ice look isn't compromised. 
    It's a harmless win-win for some good causes. 

  15. 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. 

  16. 19 hours ago, colortv said:

    What criteria are we using to determine what's more gimmicky? I don't see what's more fundamentally outlandish about gradient numbers than drop shadow numbers.

    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 :censored: 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."




    11 hours ago, Ben in LA said:

    With two more uniforms to be introduced, the thread will be going on for awhile.

    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. 

  17. 29 minutes ago, BBTV said:


    Actually, if the NFL was fixing games, isn't having Brady win exactly what they should do?


    To use your analogy, Brady beating Mahomes was like Rock over Cena at XXVIII.  The league would/should fix next year to have the epic rematch, where it's an LII-style shootout that ends up with Mahomes making one more play than Brady to win it, and then they have an epic handshake at mid field (and maybe a literal torch to pass because otherwise fans wouldn't get it.)



    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 😛

  18. 1 hour ago, colortv said:


    I think the gradient numbers could very well be retained long-term.


    Look at the Lakers dropshadow uniform numbers.


    If they had never had those but all of a sudden thrown them on, people would be shouting to the high heavens that they were gimmicky.


    The gradient numbers match the image you want to project as a Los Angeles market team, glitz.

    Drop shadow is far less gimicky than gradient. I'm not sure how gradient= "LA glitz" either. 

  19. 3 hours ago, Lana_del_Bae said:

    The NFL fixed a game's result to be a blowout instead of the classic passing of the torch from the GOAT to the next generation's GOAT who also happens to be very marketable


    Source: some angry nerd's blogspot

    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 :censored: ing at the bookers for burying Mahomes, the new up and coming face who could have used the rub. 


    1 hour ago, DNAsports said:

    I’m not saying it negates anything, but why would you start the discussion by pretending a win in the Wild Card round just didn’t exist in the path to another ring?

    Because "Brady and Bucs Go Through Brees, Rogers, Mahomes, and Heinicke" seems a bit silly. 


    Maybe if the Football Team had kept Dwayne Haskins 😛