Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by hawk36

  1. On 5/15/2020 at 9:52 AM, Gothamite said:


    Agreed completely.  That's asking the Patriots to adhere to design standards that are arbitrary and bizarre.

    It's about being consistent with your branding, and when it's so clearly cut and dry and easy to follow, and then isn't followed, I question the competency of the designers and art directors involved. Again you can like or dislike the look, but the rules of quality design aren't being adhered to in this case. 

  2. 2 hours ago, dont care said:

    These are ridiculous reasons. The logo is much smaller than the numbers and even includes silver and red too which you ignore, and they also don’t have the flag on their uniform other than the one required on the helmet for every team, and without the blue would look inconsistent.

    These are basic good design principles. People can do and like what they want but there are very valid, time tested reasons why they are in place. 

  3. 37 minutes ago, L10nheart404 said:

    But the uniforms are really no different than the Colts, LSU, Ole Miss, and all other teams with that shoulder/pants  tri-color stripe pattern.

    The issue isn't the stripes, it's the double outlined numerals that clutter what could be a nice, clean look.



  4. 2 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

    I wonder if part of the problem is that they bet pretty big on the new horn shape and it just doesn't really do it. 



    Exactly. The new horn failed and thus the rest fails. At the very least they should've added another break making the horn into thirds. It's like they started with the twisting motif but then didn't finish it. 


  5. 1 hour ago, plastictaxicab said:

    Okay, so I don't HATE these like the general public seems to. I do think they are all over the place, and like the Falcons, I think there were close to a pretty good, modern update. Here's what I would've like to see:



    What I adjusted:



    • Removed chest patch
    • Yellow numbers instead of gradient numbers
    • Blue/white socks instead of full blue


    • Removed chest patch
    • Adjusted shoulders so they are consistent with the home jersey
    • Identical to home from the waist down


    In my opinion, this is all they need for a successful update.

    Those are very nice. Should have been the logical next round of revisions for Nike but they got lazy.


    The only thing I may add is, if they are intent on using the cut, crescent horn motif, then use that to cut the pant stripe too.

  6. 1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

    I think I finally realized why I don't like the ram head - it looks like a skull.  Like the ram is dead, and the skull was found laying on the ground somewhere.  Kinda like a more minimalistic version of the old Predators skull.  The modifications with eyes that have been posted here aren't really good, but the idea is right.  It needs something to indicate that it's living and has a soul.  It's souless and lifless. 

    I always thought it was a skull (even the throwbacks) but was corrected earlier on this board when I revised their logo to look more skull-like. I'd say either go with a mean skull type look OR like you said, something with a soul. 



  7. 2 hours ago, Gothamite said:


    You're not wrong.  These are gorgeous.




    I especially loved the 2009 versions, with really thick black outline.



    Agreed. Those are incredible. Saints all whites with gold numerals is 1A and this is 1B.

  8. 3 hours ago, leopard88 said:

    By the way, this is still the Los Angeles NFL Brands thread, right?  I want to make sure I didn't make a wrong turn somewhere.



    It's what they get for 1) waiting so long and 2) screwing up the logo in the first place. Their only hope is to come out with a uniform that closely resembles the throwbacks and then they begin to downplay the Good Morning LA logo. 

  9. On 5/4/2020 at 4:46 PM, HoopsCoach55 said:

    As an Oklahoman with family working in the Thunder organization..... We weren't really thrilled with how it happened either. It always felt like Bennett was going to take the franchise from Seattle no-matter-what, and most Okies never felt that was right. 

    I'd say most in Seattle blame 1. Howard Schultz for selling the team and 2. Commissioner Stern for paving the way for him to sell it to Bennett. In fact many, including myself, refuse to go to Starbucks because of it even though there is one on every corner in town.


    As much as I hate what Bennett did, I can't blame him for wanting the team in his town. We all knew it was going to happen as soon as the sale went through. 

  10. 1 minute ago, BringBackTheVet said:


    I wasn't clear enough.  I was speaking more from the perspective of the fan base gaining the team, rather than the one losing it. Obviously people feel some pain, and it's natural for many to hate the organization and revel in their failures, just don't hate on the fans - they did no wrong.  I meant the fan base receiving the team should just focus on their gain and the team movingforward, and not the other's loss. 

    And this is EXACTLY why when teams move, they should be required to re-brand and leave the old brand with the city it left, especially when they are historic franchises in the city. There are a few exceptions of course (Rams back to LA or Raiders back to Oakland). But if I have to say anything good about the OKC organization, it's that they didn't steal the name too. Still I hate everything about that franchise with a passion.

  11. 10 hours ago, Gothamite said:

    Not just allowing the Chargers to move, but almost requiring that they do.

    All to spite Kroenke, the final attempt to punish him for moving the Rams back to LA.  As petty and silly as it sounds. 

    I'm not so sure about that. John Clayton has said on his radio show that the owners didn't really expect the Chargers move to happen and were kind of shocked when it actually did. Basically they wanted a new stadium in San Diego and didn't want the Raiders in LA so they allowed the Chargers to play that out. Unfortunately it backfired.  

  12. 21 minutes ago, radchad said:

    I'm sorry but absolutely none of the Maryland flag uniforms have been good, IMO

    What I really respond to with the Maryland flag uniform is how bold and unique it is. In a cookie cutter world of football uniforms, they stand out. That being said, I love tradition and think the Penn State, Alabama, USC, LSU looks are great, but if you don't have the tradition, don't dumb down your look to try and imitate them, make your own tradition. This does it. 

  13. 11 hours ago, Chromatic said:

    My biggest issue with teams wearing predominantly white at home is that they also typically wear white on the road. Couple that in with colour rush/alternates/throwbacks and you might go an entire season without seeing what is arguably a team's "main" uniform. And with that beautiful shade of blue the Chargers are finally embracing, I think that would be a shame. 

    Yes, I understand for marketing and jersey sales they need to have a balance. Still, as a nod to the greatest era of Charger football, in my opinion, I'd like to see the return to the white/yellow look. It was Chargers to me and although I liked the look of the royal jersey back then, they just didn't look like the Chargers wearing blue/yellow. (Keep in mind the white/yellow era was when I was in the sweet 10-20 age range so that tends to stick with many of us as THE look for our teams).

  14. This is a great uniform but just needs a slight refinement... With so much going on the outlined numerals unnecessarily clutter. Look at the flag, no outlines, keep that in mind and use sold black or solid red numerals and it all comes together nicely. 



  15. 1 hour ago, _J_ said:

    Yes. If for no other reason, to sell the white jerseys.

    I'd actually like the Chargers to go back to the whites at home like they had throughout the Air Coryell days. It'd be a nice contrast to the Rams if the Rams wear blue at home. Then when they play each other they are both wearing their home uniforms. 



  16. 14 hours ago, jn8 said:

    I'm sorry, but this just isn't doing anything for me. I guess it's better than the segmented horn with gradients, but it's still a bad logo. In my head, an LA logo with a horn coming off the A sounds like it could work, but every version I've seen is "meh" at best.

    I just think they overthought it. Revise rather than reinvent, especially for a historic franchise. 



  17. Right. I'd say the Chargers looks in the 60s and then again in the early 80s were equally great and far superior to anything in the navy. As well, I'd say the Padres in the early 70s were a great look although I preferred the 1978 version above all. Again, much better than anything in the navy. Great to see both admitting it and going back to what were superior looks. At least in my opinion and a native San Diegan and lifelong fan of both. 

  18. 49 minutes ago, Lights Out said:


    Quite the contrary. The older fanbase (back when it still existed) was polarized at best on royal blue and hated navy. Powder blue was always our preference.


    Navy in particular was rubber-stamped by the Spanos family with no consideration to the fanbase's opinion. I even remember reading once that they had to be talked out of removing the bolts from the uniforms at one point, so that should give you an idea of how bad their taste is.

    It was this storm of the powers at be taking San Diego's soul and forcing navy blue into the mix (Padres and Chargers). Padres/Brown and Chargers/Royal or Powder are "right" and now the only problem is the Chargers are in LA. But the looks are pretty much what the majority of true fans have been wanting for years. 

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.