Jump to content

OnWis97

Members
  • Posts

    15,154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by OnWis97

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. As discussed in some thread (maybe this one?) a while back, I am not going to give a second thought to "classic is good." That means almost nothing coming from someone who isn't obsessed like we are. All it really means is that they'll be using black and orange. I am sure most non-obsessed observers would have said that upon seeing the current Vikings uniforms, which would get us thinking about Fran Tarkenton or perhaps Cris Carter.

     

  4. 1 hour ago, PaleVermilion81 said:

     

    It wasn't just the helmet.

    At the time, I agreed and I sometimes thought that the elite-level awfulness of that helmet drove people to think the rest was good because it was just standard-level awful. 

     

    And maybe the new jerseys are having the same impact on me...looking back, I don't think that uniform (neck-down, of course) was terrible. Not one of my favorites, but at least it looked like a game uniform, unlike today. But still...they had it right the first time.

     

     

  5. 18 hours ago, IceCap said:

    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. 

    Exactly.  When the teams started, I liked the Jags look a lot better. I've never liked Carolina's helmet logo nor the tapered stripes (and they're OK from neck-down).  I loved the prowling jaguar and (as this is per my unpopular taste) the three-color block numbers. To me, just about everything Jacksonville has done has either been a downgrade or a shift from crap to a different kind of crap. Meanwhile, Carolina has kept a sturdy, albeit unspectacular, look. I think the Rockies/Marlins expansion is kind of similar in MLB.  The Rockies have stuck with an unspectacular but generally inoffensive look and the Marlins have not been quite sure what to do.

     

    Carolina has its take on traditional striping and traditional two-color block numbers, whereas Jacksonville seems to chase trends a bit (when they're not trying to start a trend with a two-tone helmet).  Their initial three-color numbers were kind of a 1990s thing (like in "The Program"). Right now, one-color numbers and simplicity are king.

     

    I would not go quite so far as to compare them to the Padres or Canucks. While I am sure someone could ding me on the pantones, they haven't undergone the color changes those teams have and their helmet logo has been "tweaked" (which in no way compares to the Canucks skate, orca, stick-in-rink history). But from a simple "uniforms" perspective, they just can't seem to sit still.

     

    I personally could not care less which jersey is their primary because all of their jerseys look like practice jerseys to me. I'm usually not a one-color number fan but to me this is the worst one-color number decision in NFL history. I'm generally OK with simple uniforms but this needs something interesting.  From the neck down, this is definitely the worst the team has looked, in my opinion.

  6. Just now, Rockstar Matt said:


    I disagree.
     

    You can’t ever count out Mahomes and the Chiefs. I’ve seen them put up 50 after being down by 24 in the playoffs. 
     

    Tampa has to keep being aggressive and scoring. 

    KC commits holding or interference on every pass play.  They are simply overmatched on both sides of the ball.

  7. I don't think the Buffaslug was a terrible logo.  I just think it was a huge letdown given that the team was going back to it's blue/yellow roots (kinda) and people were hoping for something that reminded them of the familiar logo and/or something like the concepts that were floating around (basically a larger sword to buffalo ratio in terms of space taken up). I remember seeing the Buffaslug and just feeling the the rug had been pulled out from under me (and I'm not a Sabres fan).  I think it was more the "wrong" logo than a "bad" logo.

     

    As for OKC, I think it was designed so whatever name was chosen to be placed on top of the "OKC."  Seemed like a placeholder but here we are 12 years later and it's still in use.  I'd have lost a lot of money betting on that...

  8. 19 minutes ago, BBTV said:

     

    why does that make you mad?  I'm jealous of them - I wish I didn't care about this stuff.  Life is less stressful when you like things than when you hate things.

    It doesn’t upset me.  But it is something I just can’t relate to.  I legitimately don’t understand someone that would say that the Browns have never changed their uniforms.  I don’t really expect people to pick up on the small adjustments to the Vikings or AZ Cardinals logos (I probably would not be aware of those changes if not for the boards) but I am legitimately baffled at how much has to change for most fans to recognize a difference.

     

    Actually, maybe I can relate.  Most of you have strong feelings on the color of football socks and I almost never notice.  I don’t care whether the socks are the same color as the pants or not.  So I guess that’s what most fans are like when it comes to facemask color, number font, new tertiary colors, etc.

  9. On 1/24/2021 at 11:12 AM, oldschoolvikings said:

    I feel like there are some people on this site who are putting a bit too much stock in the random comment somebody apparently made about the changes being minor. What a frequent poster on this board would call minor vs the general population is pretty different. I'm reminded that back in 2006, when the Vikings were about to change from the Culpeper/Moss uniforms to their Rebok mess the owner's son refered to the upcoming changes as minor.

     

    I know I've related this story on the board before, but I once got in a conversation with a Saints fan who was proud of the "fact" that the Saints had never changed their uniforms. I tried pointing out changes in logos, striping, number colors, etc, and he looked at me like I was crazy. Because they'd always worn black jerseys, gold helmets, and had the same logo, in his mind that literally equalled no changes.

     

    Minor could mean anything.

    That's an excellent point.  All this means is that they're still going to be black and orange and the the helmet is still going to be tiger-striped.  I doesn't even mean that the stripes on the helmet won't take different shapes or that they won't do the gradient-to-white thing (OK, I know there are reports that the helmet's not changing, thank goodness, but if it was changing in that way, a lot of people would not call that "major").

     

    I know we're the weirdos, but I'd bet a million dollars that the number font is going to change significantly, which is not a "minor" change to anyone on this board.

     

    Your Vikings example is a good one.  Purple/yellow? Check. Purple horned helmet? Check. My favorite "normal fan" Vikings memory is when they changed from the Reebok look to the current look, seeing a fan somewhere on social media say "they're going to their throwbacks." And I'm just shaking my head saying "yeah, they totally had that weird serif pattern when they were blowing Super Bowls in the 1970s."  It's times like this that I'm reminded of how weird I am. But I only would believe "minor change" if it comes from one of us weirdos.

  10. 1 hour ago, WSU151 said:

     

    The stripes on the Saints helmets are the best part of their uniforms. The stripeless features on the jersey and pants need to change. 

    That basic three-stripe helmet pattern is a favorite of mine. And it is not very common anymore. The Packers and Cowboys will probably always have it but I miss the Lions using it and I wish it was a bit more common. So if the Saints need to unify, then they should make the pants match the helmet.

  11. 12 hours ago, DNAsports said:

    I really hope every team passes on the opportunity to trade for Aaron Rodgers. He deserves to stay in Green Bay and rot in his own personal hell that he single handedly created himself. 

    Except that they could win it all next year.  As a Vikings fan, I would love to see him go to Indy or something.

  12. 2 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

     

    If a bad call is the difference between a win and a loss? No, it's not childish. Refs shouldn't be the deciding factor between two even teams.

     

    But on Sunday? The Packers took themselves out of the game. The PI call was bogus in the context of the game, but the Packers had karma for their coward FG try.

     

    And the Bills failed to learn any lessons from that game by going to FGs instead of TDs. They got what they :censored:ing deserved.

     

    (BTW, I'm sad, but not salty. The Bills hung in there, but the Chiefs were the better team in all phases last night. They deserved to win. And I'm glad Mahomes isn't permanently disabled or anything; he's a great dude and while I wish he were on my team, the league is better off for him in it.)

    I'm definitely not a fan of "well they should not have been in that position." Case-by-case, it's pretty much saying that a team needed to win by "extra" because playing enough to win by a point will get you a loss. That said, there's a ton of nuance to whether officials cost a team a game and we focus far too much on the last call. (I can bore you with examples, but won't.) I think the times "don't blame the refs" bugs me the most is when one team is consistently favored throughout the game.  Interestingly, I feel like this happens at Lambeau Field a lot.

     

    Yesterday, I don't think that call is made if, say, the Niners are on the other sideline.  I kinda think Brady got the nod over the Packers. That said, this isn't a game where I blame the refs. This call probably should not have been made, but I don't feel that the rest of the game was one-sided. And even for those that do like to play the "last call is the one that matters" game, we'll never know what would have happened on a subsequent Packers drive. So it was the difference not between a win and a loss, but more like another chance and a loss.

     

    And it happened to the Packers. When that happens to the Titans, nobody cares.

  13. I was surprised they kicked that field goal.  
     

    You don’t make that PI call in Lambeau against the league’s signature franchise.  But I can’t believe they kicked tha field goal.

  14. I'd predict the helmet stays the same.

     

    From the neck, down, this is far overdue.  However, I love black and orange together and it's kind of hard not to imagine them going with one-color numbers, as that's the current trend and particularly when one color is either yellow or orange.  My (totally uneducated) prediction is that this will be most reminiscent of the Jags (with a little Pats/Chargers). One-color numbers; a quieter, but still propriety, font; orange and white never touching; no TV numbers.

     

    I'd really like some block-ish numbers with orange outline. I think that is actually my favorite part of their original tiger-stripes. But that's not the trend right now.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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