Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by OnWis97

  1. I'd guess (based on nothing but my gut) that your second concept is closer to what's going to happen. I suppose stripeless pants are kind of a trend but I think the "New Stripes" are going to go beyond just three stripes on each shoulder. I'd guess there will orange pants, too, particularly given that black stripes on orange just makes so much sense (but I beg them not to go orange/orange/orange).


    I'll guess the pants design will be more like your black pants (i.e., no one-color stripe going all the way to the bottom). White pants with black stripes, no orange. Orange/black pants with no white.  I'd guess three thinner stripes without the short side-panel like portion at the top of the pants.


    I hope I'm right. Those stripeless pants stick out like a sore thumb and the "B" just isn't worth it.

  2. 20 minutes ago, Sport said:


    That's possible, but this came straight from the Jets and I doubt the designer was trying to make the team look silly. The more likely thing is that It was probably item #20 on the to-do list of a 23 year old making 28k a year in hour 11 on the job that day. They didn't really question or think too hard about the context, found a graphic with a Darnold photo, and replaced the words in the template. The funny thing is that someone said "we need a Darnold mono graphic" (why?) and at least two people gave it approval to post without going "hahah no LOL absolutely not". 

    But when you look at how bad the Jets are, why are they even worried about making graphics like this and designing new uniforms a few years ago when they need to be drafting and coaching better?

    (Just to be clear, I'm kidding; somehow this reminded me of that statement fans like to make, as if designing uniforms actually gets in the way with sportsball operations).


    I tend to agree with you that I doubt a graphic designer would do this intentionally for giggles. It's probably not a good way to keep your job for a long time to be sliding stuff like this past the team, thereby making the organization look bad. I'd bet graphic designers working for sports teams are pretty replaceable as many people would love to work for a team.

  3. On 3/12/2021 at 10:36 PM, schlim said:

    This is one time I'd like to see all of this advertising put into action - AP's Style Guide changes any references to the basketball team to "MSU Spartans Basketball presented by Rocket Mortgages". Give them exactly what they want and refuse to abbreviate things to 'the Spartans' or 'Michigan State' and hold to their preferred nomenclature. Every single reference. Over and over.

    It would be a glorious Monkey's Paw wish, and let's let those money grubbing ***************** live with what they sold themselves 

    I recall when the Bears said they were going to be “The Chicago Bears presented by Bank One,” I decided to simply refer to them as “Bank One.”  Then the whole thing fizzled and I kind of forgot about it.


    While this is my kind of passive aggression, though, the logical conclusion would be that it would be accepted and eventually embraced.  Kinda like how the Chick Fil A Peach Bowl became the Chick Fil A Bowl. Fortunately, it’s back, but many lower-level bowls have changeable corporate names.

  4. 11 minutes ago, AgentColon2 said:

    Tell that to the Brown family. I’ve always said that B exists for their name and not Bengals. They put themselves over the city and over the team nickname.

    That's another reason to switch to a C.


    I think the stripes simply look better on a B than a C. But I totally agree with the concept that the city initial would be better, all else equal.

  5. I like Navy in general, though it might be overused.


    Not sure how unpopular this is but I think the Bears are by far the "drabbest" team in the NFL. I admit that I don't know much about pantones, etc. but if you look at the Islanders photo above, I think it's a decent look.  I believe (someone correct me if I am wrong) that the Bears blue is darker.  I think if their blue looked like the Islanders (i.e., a bit lighter) or if it was just black instead of blue (i.e., like the Bengals), I'd like their look a lot better. But their shade is kind of in this weird in-between spot that just doesn't appeal to me.


    If I am wrong about the darkness of the Bears's color, then it must be something about the way they balance their colors.

  6. It looks like they might just minimize the use of the name, but preferred the option of keeping it for a year rather than going the Washington route. I am actually OK with this even though it’s counterintuitive to suggest the name must go...next year. I suppose this is a showing that it is not as egregious as the Washington name was. But I just can’t bring myself to be upset over the way the team is handling it.  It kind of feels like the second to last step in the phase out, with the final step being a new name next year. Wahoo is gone and the name is just sort of keeping the seat warm for a new name.

  7. 26 minutes ago, AndrewMLind said:


    I do miss this shade of blue, though. Felt perfect for rainy Seattle.

    That's still my favorite Seahawks jersey.  And helmet.  It's my favorite uniform, even though they always struggled with the pants (whehter going mono or not).


    I thought that color was terrific.

  8. 15 minutes ago, FiddySicks said:

    This is my biggest worry, but for the opposite reason. This makes me feel that they’re going to keep the stupid looking contrasting black shoulder yoke on the white jersey. That’s the worst part of their current set IMO, and needs to be ditched immediately. 

    I would not be surprised if there’s no orange on it at all.

  9. I’ll believe they are going to have two-color numbers when I see it.


    That said, I will take it if offered.  It’s sort of a clean-up of the current uniform, with several bad things going away.


    The orange stripes on the black jersey are a bit odd; it’s why I prefer the original orange “band” with black tiger stripes.

  10. 1 hour ago, Kramerica Industries said:



    I mean, we get annoyed sometimes in baseball when you see the Indians/Twins wear navy against the White Sox wearing black, or something like that, but how different is white and gray from navy and black, honestly? Yes, they're distinguishable, but they're hardly that far apart on the overall color spectrum. We just accept it because it's something we're used to and because of "tradition", nevermind the reasons necessitating gray MLB uniforms haven't been a problem for decades now. 

    Yeah. I suppose the A's and Angels in green vs. red is even more distinguishable than white vs. gray. I'd still argue that the place to draw the line is white or gray should be included in each game because 1) then we don't have to draw a line and watch navy vs. black, navy vs. royal, or teal Mariners vs. kelly A's and 2) even the obvious contrasts bug me and I'd rather primaries play a bigger role.


    I don't think wearing whatever jersey the starting pitcher wants makes it worth saying "the Cubs and Brewers don't wear the same blue, so it's cool.

  11. 1 minute ago, FiddySicks said:

    I think you guys are sleeping on the Cardinals a bit. That division is kinda wide open right now, too. 

    I think all four teams have a shot to be good.  Might be the best division in the NFL.


    The Cardinals is an odd choice for Watt and while some of the reactions are a bit over the top, I think it is an indication that he's not what he used to be and there wasn't that much demand. (Maybe even that people were too hard on the Texans for letting him go).

  12. The whole NBA program of short-lived jerseys that don't match team colors bugs me. That said it's giving you the opportunity to be creating. The Bulls theater jersey, for example. I only noticed the second time through that the side panels are curtains. Very clever, though the marquis might be a bit clunky for the front.


    In the same vein, while I don't think community uniforms should exist, the T-Wolves should absolutely do something like you've done with the Minneapolis / St. Paul (since these kind of uniforms do exist). For some reason, I think the suburbanites would be OK with the Minneapolis and St. Paul sides, but I think they'd balk at the area codes "612 to 651? 763 for life!"


    Also, I like the LA map side panels.

  13. On 2/27/2021 at 2:37 PM, Sec19Row53 said:

    Change your name to Arlcowboyfan92, and THEN you can :censored: about them being called New York.

    It's amazing how this is the only suburban team (well, teams, since there are two of them) that draw these comments.  The Football Team plays in Maryland and nobody says anything about that. I honestly believe if New York State and New York City didn't have the same name, nobody would squawk. If the city was called Gotham, New York and the Gotham Jets and Gotham Giants played in the New Jersey suburbs of Gotham, nobody would care.  Otherwise, where's the "Maryland Football Team" bandwagon?

  14. 5 hours ago, BBTV said:

    Backup QB.  You make millions, don't get hit, no brain damage, you're super popular when the starter is doing poorly, and when he's doing well, you basically just hold a clipboard and collect millions.  If the starter is a superstar, you may even get an absurd contract somewhere that you didn't earn (Matt Flynn) then cash that check and retire.

    As a Wisconsin graduate, I always loved the career of Jim Sorgi. One-year starter at Wisconsin. Backed up Peyton Manning when he was an iron man.  I think he was in the league for eight or nine years and barely got on the field.  Probably made some good money (though he didn't have that Flynn moment to get him the fat free agent contract), owns a Super Bowl Ring, and probably has his health intact.


    EDIT: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/new-york-giants/jim-sorgi-5046/cash-earnings/

    Looks like he earned about $5 million in only seven seasons.  Only appeared in 16 games.  High six figures on average for seven years. It's nice work if you can get it.

  15. I think the only way to make a tiger-striped "C" look good would be to go back to the 1980s and use more/thinner stripes. But that would be difficult to translate under the collar, on a polo, etc. So ditch the letter and go with the leaping tiger. I have a personal bias towards full-body logos (Lions, the short-lived Coyotes alt, the original Jags sleeve logo, the crawling Cub sleeve patch) and against head logos, anyway. But with the Jags and Panthers, we are pretty well set in the cat head logo. Leaping tiger was fantastic and would be unique in the league, since it's animated while Detroit uses a silhouette.

  16. 3 hours ago, WSU151 said:

    I'd say the Ravens' tapered helmet stripes are pretty dated. A single purple stripe would probably look pretty nice, or a purple stripe with thin gold stripes would look good too. 

    I'd say either incorporate gold or remove the stripes.  The current striping is the worst example of the poor contrast between black and purple. The stripes are barely visible.

  17. 4 minutes ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

    So? It represents the team. Maybe I'm biased cause my favorite team's logo is a C that stands for the team's name, but I don't see anything wrong with that

    And boring is subjective. Do you find the Cubs logo in your avatar boring? Cause it's not objectively much different from the Bengals' B logo

    I certainly think a C would be better because it is redundant to use a letter representing the name and then other imagery the name the same time.  For the same reason I don’t like the Falcons and Eagle logos that respectively highlight an F and an E.


    That said, I don’t think the stripes would work very well in a C. Therefore, the B is probably better by default. But then again, they don’t need to use either.

  • Create New...

Important Information

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