FinsUp1214

Members
  • Content Count

    2,818
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by FinsUp1214

  1. The Hurricanes left a comment here that said “do it against us and we’ll wear our Whalers stuff”.
  2. Highland HS in Utah does the wider-set horns (inner edges against the bumper), but are to my eye a little thicker than the Rams had been doing lately, as well as loop slightly lower: To compare: If we’re talking alternative horn applications, I’m personally a fan of the thick horns Rhode Island utilizes (those in gold would look really dynamic), but I’ve always thought Highland’s application looked good and I’d go for that as well.
  3. I think there’s ways to do a ram head well. Profile view can work when done right, but front-facing works when done right as well. I think Colorado State’s logo is a pretty good example (it could stand a tiny bit of cleaning on the ears and neckline, but that’s beside the point):
  4. Yeah, I think it’s really unfortunate that some pretty good uniforms are paired with that logo. I’ll never unsee the dolphin belly flopping, which 1) only lends more to the Dolphins’ persona as a bad team, and 2) is far more sillier in my eyes than a dolphin wearing a helmet, and it’s not even close. And before someone posts a picture of a real dolphin in a similar position, I’m aware that yes, they do make that pose sometimes. The point isn’t whether or not it’s something a dolphin even does, the point is that it’s a clumsier looking position in comparison to the other positions you can depict a dolphin in. They’re one of the most graceful species on the planet; people go out of thier way and travel to see these things jump. Why design a dolphin logo that looks like a FailArmy sensation when you have SO much better to work with? At what point during the look at a mood board did the designers go “that one. The one with the haphazard looking re-entry. THAT captures the winning spirit of the Miami Dolphins”? That’s my problem with it.
  5. This layout is a perfect example of what’s ultimately wrong here (and I say this understanding that we still don’t know the final product yet). An indicator of good design is how quickly something can be understood without convolution; top right has a crescent moon effect drawing too much attention, and bottom left and right look too much like the 007 intro. The simplicity in message that should be achieved is ultimately not, because people are seeing other things and associating the mark with those things instead of the intended ram horn. Top left in my opinion is the best of the four because it reads the most like a ram horn, though ultimately I don’t think the gradient is all that necessary and would be a passable, average helmet at best. What I’m getting at here is that in the Rams’ odd efforts to get cutesy with something that was better off straightforward, they’ve convoluted a visual message that really only required simplicity (and had already been delivered simply for decades). In my opinion, this is the visual equivalent of mistranslating or misspeaking a language: It doesn’t matter what you meant to say if you use the wrong word or allude to an incorrect meaning, whoever you’re speaking to is getting the meaning and message associated with your error anyway, and you must correct it if you want your message understood. The Rams, in my opinion, have the made this same mistake visually on the logo and run the risk of doing so on the helmet.
  6. I’m aware of why they went to it, and if they unified their silver blues again I’d be fine with that too; the above looks great as well. I just like the way silver green looks with blue in a vacuum and have always thought it’d be worth a shot to try it on the helmet too. That’s just my opinion.
  7. I’m a big proponent of the idea of the Cowboys going with a silver green helmet to match the pants. This would require changing the blue jersey to accommodate, but I think it’d be worth it. Even better if they went straight up royal blue, silver green, and white with no navy at all across the board.
  8. I’ve got nothing against minimalism (I actually quite like minimalism), and I never said it needed a more detail. My argument is that it should be more refined. And just because some attempts at doing so haven’t panned well, that doesn’t mean another take couldn’t work. Proper refinement could take the form of a variety of different tweaks that aren’t extensive, and could even be subtractive. As for me personally, I would’ve done something about the rounded ends of the horns and facial details that are giving off the stylus drawn look, and try to define the eye a little bit better (it doesn’t need a yellow or white pupil, but right now I think it looks too much like only the brow and could be re-rendered to read a little better, rather than added to). That’s just me, though.
  9. I love the idea of the ram head, I just wish it looked a little more....finished, I guess? I doesn’t need a lot more detail or anything, it’s just that something about it makes it look less refined than it could be. I’ve mentioned before that the face looks like an attempt at drawing a ram digitally with a stylus, and while the composition is good, it looks like it was left at that and not followed through with proper finishing and cleaning. I don’t know how else to describe it. It’s definitely the best of the two logos they have, and I’ll gladly take it as the primary over the LA. It’s still not as great as it could’ve been with some more work, though.
  10. The silver numbers on white are okay as a once-in-a-while alternate, but I’ve always thought it made that uniform combo a bit too silver-heavy without enough black offset it. The black numbers on white strike a perfect color balance for me across the uniform as a whole (and also just look more intimidating, which is something the Raiders should always evoke), and I strongly prefer that to be the primary road option.
  11. While the color scheme does work, I have a hard time believing they couldn’t have come up with something different from the Astros that still evokes a desert theme. I’ve seen plenty of concepts with various desert schemes that pull it off without looking like the old Astros. They could’ve even swapped sand for turquoise (or even goldenrod/yellow/whatever) originally and that’d still be plenty different.
  12. Oh yeah, I loved the 2000 version star too. I loved that, as has been posted earlier, it conveyed the same meaning as the 1994 star but in a simpler, almost modernist way. I just wasn’t as big a fan of the colors it went with. Maybe burnt orange, navy, and gold or sand would’ve worked better? Kinda Baron Davis era Warriorsy, but I think the Astros could rock that color scheme well with the abstract star.
  13. I didn’t like that color scheme for Houston either, but in their defense, they beat Arizona to it a few years before. Blame Arizona for the two having the same colors for a period of time, not Houston.
  14. They’re still trying to “figure out” how to release them? All the other teams figured it out pretty quick. The Browns had a photoshoot in a garage, for Pete’s sake. This isn’t hard. Even beyond the botched logos, the Rams seem to really be overthinking this whole thing to substantial degrees.
  15. I promise I’m not saying this to be an a$$, but in most cases it’s really not that hard to understand and isn’t that mind-blowing: It’s nostalgia. And I’ll fully admit that nostalgia has an influence on some of my preferences from logo to logo. I’d argue it would for a whole lot of us. Nostalgia is easy to shoot down and disregard, but in contrast I believe it to be a very important factor to consider in branding; emotional response is a good thing. I’m not saying something that’s deeply flawed in craft has to come back as-is just because fans have feelings for it, but I see nothing wrong with taking the idea of something nostalgically loved and cleaning it up to make it fit for the present day. I assume that’s why many collegiate mascot logos with sailor hats and/or sweaters have survived to the present day in modernized forms.
  16. I don’t recall any Cardinals rumors posted. The only Cardinals news is that Murray doesn’t like the uniforms, but nothing’s been said about the Cardinals actually changing anything, or even considering a change.
  17. Hey that’s fine, you’re entitled to your opinions! I couldn’t agree to disagree more! To save space I’ll be brief, but I think a lot of this comes down to difference in opinion and interpretation rather than right/wrong. For example, the Packers’ color changes were technically a break with tradition, yes, but they did so before the advent of color television - a massive difference maker in branding - and that change did not hold the same expansive branding ramifications then that a team rebranding today would. I thus see the Packers changes vs. a Cardinals radical change today as being apples and oranges. That’s not saying you’re wrong at all; it is indeed a fact the Packers changed colors, and I absolutely see where you’re coming from. I’m just saying that I interpret that case as being different than if the Cardinals were to do something drastic now due to the ramifications being different. As for the argument against celebrating all of the Cardinals’ longevity just because a lot of it took place elsewhere? The present Arizona Cardinals honor the franchise’s entire history already. Thier ring of honor includes Chicago, St. Louis, and Arizona figures together. If we’re wondering whether or not pre-Arizona history matters? The team itself seems to think so, or else they wouldn’t bother acknowledging it to the degree they do now. I can’t speak at all for Cardinals fans, but I’m a fan of two teams that had relocated previously - the Jazz and Colts - and thier history elsewhere still matters to me as a fan because both teams, in their own way of honoring it, say it matters. So from my own personal perspective, unless a team outright severs the link altogether, the history is worth acknowledging no matter where it took place, especially if said team does exactly that already. Again, these are all just opinions and different interpretations, and I respect yours and where you’re coming from. I just see nearly every point a bit differently, is all.
  18. Just my two cents on the Cardinals, and this is purely just my opinion: I’m very much a “ship has sailed” kind of guy when it comes to some branding stuff; by that, I mean if a team hasn’t made the kind of radical change some clamor for after years and years, they shouldn’t have to suddenly make it now. The Utah Jazz, established red and blue MLB teams, and the Arizona Cardinals fall into this category for me. Each had thier early opportunities to make radical changes, never really did and have established new histories with what they have (yes, the Cards wear modern uniforms, but they kept bones of the classic feel around, opting to only modernize the classic cardinal rather than replace it with something entirely different and keeping the white helmet. I don’t consider it a total, radical rebrand). As for the claim the Cardinals don’t have a good enough history to honor? Being a 100+ year old franchise in and of itself is still a massive achievement and something worth celebrating on its own. If the rest of your history is so bad, why not hang your hat on your longevity instead? Just redirect the attention to that fact rather than win/loss and I think traditional is plenty justified. That’s ultimately why I still call for the Cardinals to keep it traditional, because I still think kicking around for a century-plus on its own is worth honoring and to throw that away entirely and act like that doesn’t matter somehow would be a shame. I don’t know, it’s kind of charmingly resilient for a franchise to struggle for decades, cross the country over two moves, but never fold and still be up and at it. The same couldn’t be said for plenty of professional sports franchises.
  19. I absolutely think they could pull that off, and pull it off well. I’d even be for some kind of stylized flag-inspired logo, around the same line of thinking as this Coyotes’ alt: Not a state outline per se, but something flag-inspired that’s stylized in a similar fashion.
  20. Boy, that’s bad altogether. This somehow, even as a botched photoshop, also makes me hate the belly-flop dolphin even more than I did before, seeing it paired with the Franken-throwback. It doesn’t work now in my opinion, and it wouldn’t work with anything more throwback-inspired, either.
  21. I don’t know if it’s the craziest, and he’s not quite eligible for the HOF yet, but Antonio Gates’ story is still pretty crazy. Never played college football, was a college basketball star, was told he was too short for his position to play in the NBA, arranges an NFL workout instead because he did play in high school and wanted to explore his options, the Chargers sign him as an undrafted free agent...long story short, yada yada, he retires from the NFL 15 years later as one of the greatest tight ends of all-time. 8x pro bowler, 3x First Team All-Pro, 7th in all-time TD receptions and 1st among tight ends. Pretty good for a guy who never played in college.
  22. I haven’t watched it yet, but I imagine one of my worst days as a sports fan will be watching The Last Dance and re-living the Jazz ‘98 Finals loss. I have upmost respect for those Bulls teams and totally get the cultural phenomenon behind them, but I have to be honest: being a die-hard fan of the team they legendarily beat twice for MJ’s second swan-song (and seeing that understandably sensationalized over the course of two decades) really sucks sometimes. Oh well, at least they got to be part of a great ride I guess.
  23. Personally, I’m not a fan of the idea of that Vegas sign logo in the endzone. It leaves a whole lot of empty space to the left and right, and is a bit of a cluttered logo as-is. A wordmark on its own (“LAS VEGAS” or “RAIDERS”, either one) is better suited for the endzone, in my opinion.
  24. On number 2....is it off-white/cream?
  25. Literally every tweak I had thought of to improve thier new set is in included here. And this indeed looks much better, in my opinion. Great work. The Patriots were so close, and yet so very far. I don’t think what they came up with was bad, but just really disappointing in comparison to what it could’ve been.