Jump to content

NFL Changes - 2016


Bill0813

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, djam2410 said:

Titans may be introducing a new wordmark as seen on their preseason calendar. Can anyone confirm this? 

 

Cfd7wXGWEAAR57p.jpg

 

EDIT: NVM, seems the graphic designer who created this is suggesting it is only for branding purposes

 

 

2016-04-08 21_59_37-Kristopher Bazen on Twitter_ _@AshleyStrauss Did the Titans change their wordmar.png

But that's better than their current mark, IMO. 

spacer.png

jCMXRTJ.png.c7b9b888fd36f93c327929ec580f08dc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
20 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Well, what choice would they have?

Because the NFL could understand that merchandising isn't just cut-n-paste. Some primary logos don't lend themselves to different situations.

 

Some places, 'wordmark' logos won't look right and others won't look right. There's a place where a logo that is a helmet (SD, CIN, CLE, MIN, STL/LA, etc) is preferable, but there's others where using that logo looks horrific (such as the NFL Walmart jerseys that used the SD and CLE helmets rather than a logo such as just the lightning bolt or the < B > logo or dawg head logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, panthers_2012 said:

But that's better than their current mark, IMO. 

 

b89afa121e8543d0f33fc03753c1c8bc.jpg

 

While this is admittedly a smidge busy and not the freshest wordmark in 2016, it has a lot more identity and character than that proposed wordmark. The latter feels fresh now, but I think it would have little going for it in a decade when typography trends push past the current trend of bulky headline fonts. Personally, I would love a wordmark that shuffles the deck equally between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

Because the NFL could understand that merchandising isn't just cut-n-paste. Some primary logos don't lend themselves to different situations.

 

Some places, 'wordmark' logos won't look right and others won't look right. There's a place where a logo that is a helmet (SD, CIN, CLE, MIN, STL/LA, etc) is preferable, but there's others where using that logo looks horrific (such as the NFL Walmart jerseys that used the SD and CLE helmets rather than a logo such as just the lightning bolt or the < B > logo or dawg head logo.

 

28 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

The elf logo?

 

Yeah, I was kind of being sarcastic.  My point being, apparently the Browns think the helmet is their only alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

 

Yeah, I was kind of being sarcastic.  My point being, apparently the Browns think the helmet is their only alternative.

Actually, during the time in question, the browns has the helmet, the wordmark, the elf, the < B >, and the dawg head logo. And yet none were ever used.

 

The Bengals figured it out, their helmet is iconic, but it doesn't look great for merchandise, so they went with the leaping Bengal and the Bengal head logo for merchandise. The fact the Browns didn't understand that in the latest redo notwithstanding, doesn't mean that back 5-10-15 years ago the NFL couldn't understand that if a particular piece of merchandise called for "Primary #1" logo, that it must be used for all teams. Instead of what will actually sell the most merchandise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really liked the dawg head logo. Butch Davis had a black leather jacket he wore on the sideline that only had the logo on the back with no wordmarks. Part of the dislike, probably, was that the ensuing years after the playoff appearance weren't that great until the 2007 10-6 season. Plus, they tried to create two new logos while not replacing the primary logo.

 

And it comes down to tone-deafness. The team is told repeatedly, 'don't put a logo on the helmet' because 'that's us' doesn't mean fans won't buy merchandise with a different logo. The reintroduction of the Brownie was seen throughout the stadium. But, the team refused to really get behind it. Part of that is 'stepping on tradition' but part of that is not understanding what tradition meant. The helmet isn't even sacred. It's been tweaked and changed many times over the years. Different facemask designs. One bar. Two bar. The current design, etc. White. Gray. Now brown.

 

It's one reason why fans were so disappointed with the rebranding/update this past year. The fans wanted 'new' and the team took that to mean "don't touch the helmet (though they did)" and the helmet as a logo, but butchered the uniforms. Which was about the exact opposite what fans wanted. Keep the uniforms, create a new merchandise/insignia primary, but leave it off the helmet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

I really liked the dawg head logo. Butch Davis had a black leather jacket he wore on the sideline that only had the logo on the back with no wordmarks. Part of the dislike, probably, was that the ensuing years after the playoff appearance weren't that great until the 2007 10-6 season. Plus, they tried to create two new logos while not replacing the primary logo.

 

And it comes down to tone-deafness. The team is told repeatedly, 'don't put a logo on the helmet' because 'that's us' doesn't mean fans won't buy merchandise with a different logo. The reintroduction of the Brownie was seen throughout the stadium. But, the team refused to really get behind it. Part of that is 'stepping on tradition' but part of that is not understanding what tradition meant. The helmet isn't even sacred. It's been tweaked and changed many times over the years. Different facemask designs. One bar. Two bar. The current design, etc. White. Gray. Now brown.

 

It's one reason why fans were so disappointed with the rebranding/update this past year. The fans wanted 'new' and the team took that to mean "don't touch the helmet (though they did)" and the helmet as a logo, but butchered the uniforms. Which was about the exact opposite what fans wanted. Keep the uniforms, create a new merchandise/insignia primary, but leave it off the helmet.

THANK YOU!! As I have stated before,I'm not a Browns fan,but I do live in Cleveland. I liked the dog logo and I totally wished that the Browns wouldn't touch the uniforms,but they did. The new uniforms are a way to make money for the Browns. I dislike their current uniforms and wish they did what you just said up there. 

spacer.png

jCMXRTJ.png.c7b9b888fd36f93c327929ec580f08dc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

I really liked the dawg head logo. Butch Davis had a black leather jacket he wore on the sideline that only had the logo on the back with no wordmarks. Part of the dislike, probably, was that the ensuing years after the playoff appearance weren't that great until the 2007 10-6 season. Plus, they tried to create two new logos while not replacing the primary logo.

 

And it comes down to tone-deafness. The team is told repeatedly, 'don't put a logo on the helmet' because 'that's us' doesn't mean fans won't buy merchandise with a different logo. The reintroduction of the Brownie was seen throughout the stadium. But, the team refused to really get behind it. Part of that is 'stepping on tradition' but part of that is not understanding what tradition meant. The helmet isn't even sacred. It's been tweaked and changed many times over the years. Different facemask designs. One bar. Two bar. The current design, etc. White. Gray. Now brown.

 

It's one reason why fans were so disappointed with the rebranding/update this past year. The fans wanted 'new' and the team took that to mean "don't touch the helmet (though they did)" and the helmet as a logo, but butchered the uniforms. Which was about the exact opposite what fans wanted. Keep the uniforms, create a new merchandise/insignia primary, but leave it off the helmet.

 

As a Browns fan from Cleveland, this very accurately sums up all my frustrations with what the Browns did last year. The team president who oversaw this whole project is gone less than a year later, so here's hoping the new regime tries again as soon as possible. I'm not normally a fan of constant churn with a team's uniforms, but when you get it wrong to this degree, it's OK to try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dont care said:

They are named after their former coach, Paul Brown, not the color

I know who their named after, that wasn't what I meant before. If your name is the Browns, and you have brown in your scheme, why would you emphasize the orange the most? Just always grinded my gears 

GO NETS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Especially now, when so many players don't wear white sanitaries. 

 

The White Sox should absolutely be wearing white socks.  It doesn't make any sense this way. 

 

That Browns criticism, on the other hand, has always seemed misplaced to me, since brown was always the most prominent color on both the home and road jerseys.  Until the latest set, of course, reason #1,000,001 to hate it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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