Recommended Posts

Also, I think the fears people had about the NFL going "crazy" with the radical rebrandings of the Seahawks and the Bucs have been largely unfounded. So far, no other team has attempted to do anything as bold as those two teams. As cited, the Vikings did a great job of updating their identity while keeping it very recognizable. It's the "modern retro" or whatever you want to call it at work. Hell, even the Seahawks don't seem all that extreme anymore, now that we've had a couple seasons to get used to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where will they be playing next year. I know not St Louis but where in LA?

The Los Angeles Coliseum.

If the Chargers come nobody knows where they would play because it cannot be the LA Coliseum who said only one team temporarily, Rose Bowl, Dodger Stadium, Angels Stadium, Stub Hub Centre, all said no. So at the present moment that's the big mystery should the Chargers decide to pick up and move before 2016 season.

I like the wordmark in 1994

http://content.sportslogos.net/logos/7/188/full/grfbe07kghepvedhhyr2.gif

I don't believe that is true. I believe it was John Clayton who reported on ESPN Radio that USC had agreed to let 2 NFL teams play there next season if needed.

Yeah, I've not heard that the Coliseum won't be open to two teams. The Rose Bowl is never going to allow a pro team to play there again, and is far too small and old for the NFL, save for the occasional Super Bowl. There's really no other viable venue right now other than the Coliseum, and it can temporarily fulfill two pro teams.

The Rose Bowl is too small? It holds 92,000 people which would be the highest fixed seating capacity in the NFL. As far as age the Coliseum opened only after the Rose Bowl. So it is just as adequate if not more than the coliseum; However, for the reasons the Rose Bowl would not accept an NFL franchise is unknown to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where will they be playing next year. I know not St Louis but where in LA?

The Los Angeles Coliseum.

If the Chargers come nobody knows where they would play because it cannot be the LA Coliseum who said only one team temporarily, Rose Bowl, Dodger Stadium, Angels Stadium, Stub Hub Centre, all said no. So at the present moment that's the big mystery should the Chargers decide to pick up and move before 2016 season.

I like the wordmark in 1994

http://content.sportslogos.net/logos/7/188/full/grfbe07kghepvedhhyr2.gif

I don't believe that is true. I believe it was John Clayton who reported on ESPN Radio that USC had agreed to let 2 NFL teams play there next season if needed.

Yeah, I've not heard that the Coliseum won't be open to two teams. The Rose Bowl is never going to allow a pro team to play there again, and is far too small and old for the NFL, save for the occasional Super Bowl. There's really no other viable venue right now other than the Coliseum, and it can temporarily fulfill two pro teams.

The Rose Bowl is too small? It holds 92,000 people which would be the highest fixed seating capacity in the NFL. As far as age the Coliseum opened only after the Rose Bowl. So it is just as adequate if not more than the coliseum; However, for the reasons the Rose Bowl would not accept an NFL franchise is unknown to me.

It's mainly that the Rose Bowl suffers from the same "issues" the Coliseum does, that it doesn't provide things like the skyboxes, luxury seats, etc. that the NFL has deemed necessary for modern stadiums. Not to mention Pasadena is incredibly stuffy when it comes to the increased traffic and people that a full-time NFL team would bring. (Just look at the decades old controversy regarding the 710 extension). Even as late as 1993, the Super Bowl wasn't on the same level it is today, which is why I highly doubt you'll ever see places like Stanford or the Rose Bowl host another Super Bowl.

That said, I suppose it's not impossible the Rams (or possibly the Chargers) could play a couple games over the course of the next three seasons at the Rose Bowl. Heck, they could take it one step further and be a "traveling" team within the confines of LA. Do a game at Dodger Stadium (it worked for the Kings, right?), do a game down at Angel Stadium for old time's sake. I recognize most of these aren't actually possible due to seating configuration, but hey, who cares? Especially since it's still not clear if the Coliseum is supposed to be the temporary home for the entirety of the next three seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your opinion of that Pitt-WVU game is again subjective, but I feel that both teams looked tremendous, and it's a direct result of using Black and Grey as base neutrals to allow their primary colors to take main stage.

You may not like it, but the theory is correct, and its now prevalent use in athletic apparel & uniforms is proof that it is attractive to most.

Trust me, if it wasn't, they wouldn't be selling it.

Yeah, popularity is an excellent way to judge quality.

Kim-Kardashian-Kanye-West-Paris-Fashion-

You've gotta remember that those two jacktools spend a good chunk of their time in LA, and she's from there. If there's any spot where fashion trends could effect branding, it's in Los Angeles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things about this relocation.

First of all, the Rams are probably going to wear white at home ALOT now so that's gonna be slightly annoying. Second of all, I'm glad the Raiders are staying in Oakland but I would love to see them play the Rams on the road in the Pre-season at the Coliseum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of thoughts:

1. The St. Louis Rams had a perfect look before they mucked it up with white and blue pants:

Awesome:

4a585bfcd586bf832e7ba7e1f2ddf7e1.jpg

Terrible:

Tavon-Austin3.jpg

Tavon-Austin.gif

Tavon+Austin+St+Louis+Rams+v+Indianapoli

2. I think white pants in general look terrible on the Rams. Their gold pants were perfect when they had them in St. Louis, and I think the white over yellow look is among the very best in the NFL:

5129zwss9pL.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No to the sleeve horns. I don't care if it's unpopular (though I can appreciate its place in Rams history), but the helmet is the only place where the horns should be.

Additionally, the speculation for the Rams to go back to a specific look from the past is grounded in delusion. The return of the Rams is a huge deal for the NFL and all the more reason for them to push a fresh look for their newest market with only half assed connections to the identity of old because Nike. Seriously, we've faced this "keeping in line with our roots" rhetoric before in the Browns' recent revamp and look how that turned out. We can only hope they'll actually nail this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q: Will you bring back the old L.A. Rams uniforms?

Demoff: I think the philosophy on the uniforms is a microcosm of the philosophy of the project. Yes, we have a rich tradition and history in Los Angeles. We have colors that people identify with. We have historic players. You want to carry some of that forward.

But, we're also about to enter a world-class stadium that should be one of the best. … Yes, the Rams are coming back. It's not the Rams from the '60s, '70s, '80s. This is Stan's vision and Stan's stadium. We want to make sure we represent best in class in every aspect while we borrow from the Rams' legacy. When I look at the Rams' return to L.A., that's what people are excited about — it's modern NFL mixed with the team they grew up with.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-kroenke-20160114-story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whether the Chargers move or not this is how I'd like to see them dress

Chargers_zpsh1ctdehk.jpg

and the blue jersey

Breezy_zpsiheqnhpc.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whether the Chargers move or not this is how I'd like to see them dress

Chargers_zpsh1ctdehk.jpg

and the blue jersey

Breezy_zpsiheqnhpc.jpg

giphy.gif

Nailed it, man. Totally sold. Perfect combination of eras, and the background color to the bolts is consistent everywhere! I miss that.

I can't really say what it is, but I feel like I'm one of the few people in the world whom the powder blues do nothing for. I just have never liked them all that much. I've always been much more favorable to pretty much anything they wore between Fouts and Brees (but more so the last navy set, because of that bolt background consistency).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved the late Dan Fouts uniforms, but the yellow facemask didn't work for me. I also loved the Junior Seau uniforms, but there was one glaring problem that always separated them from upper echelon greatness - the bolt color. From a distance those Chargers uniforms looked like a navy and white team. There wasn't enough yellow. If they'd just flipped around the colors to yellow outlined with white they would've been my favorite uniforms in football. That's all I was trying to show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just use this as a general idea of what the rams in yellow-blue could look like. Im not saying exactly this design wise, but it give you some visual proof.

AR-140909289.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where will they be playing next year. I know not St Louis but where in LA?

The Los Angeles Coliseum.

If the Chargers come nobody knows where they would play because it cannot be the LA Coliseum who said only one team temporarily, Rose Bowl, Dodger Stadium, Angels Stadium, Stub Hub Centre, all said no. So at the present moment that's the big mystery should the Chargers decide to pick up and move before 2016 season.

I like the wordmark in 1994

http://content.sportslogos.net/logos/7/188/full/grfbe07kghepvedhhyr2.gif

I don't believe that is true. I believe it was John Clayton who reported on ESPN Radio that USC had agreed to let 2 NFL teams play there next season if needed.

Yeah, I've not heard that the Coliseum won't be open to two teams. The Rose Bowl is never going to allow a pro team to play there again, and is far too small and old for the NFL, save for the occasional Super Bowl. There's really no other viable venue right now other than the Coliseum, and it can temporarily fulfill two pro teams.

The Rose Bowl is too small? It holds 92,000 people which would be the highest fixed seating capacity in the NFL. As far as age the Coliseum opened only after the Rose Bowl. So it is just as adequate if not more than the coliseum; However, for the reasons the Rose Bowl would not accept an NFL franchise is unknown to me.

The Rose Bowl can simply not keep up with the demands of a high amount of fans 8 games a year. The town of Pasadena, if they have any say, will not allow an NFL team to play 8 home games a year. Also, I'm pretty sure the neighborhood the Rose Bowl is in only allows a certain amount of games at the stadium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read this interesting part regarding new uniforms for the Rams:

"Q: Will you bring back the old L.A. Rams uniforms?

Demoff: I think the philosophy on the uniforms is a microcosm of the philosophy of the project. Yes, we have a rich tradition and history in Los Angeles. We have colors that people identify with. We have historic players. You want to carry some of that forward.

But, we're also about to enter a world-class stadium that should be one of the best. … Yes, the Rams are coming back. It's not the Rams from the '60s, '70s, '80s. This is Stan's vision and Stan's stadium. We want to make sure we represent best in class in every aspect while we borrow from the Rams' legacy. When I look at the Rams' return to L.A., that's what people are excited about — it's modern NFL mixed with the team they grew up with."

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-kroenke-20160114-story.html

That tells me that they will be changing the uniforms and color scheme, but it won't be an exact carbon copy of what the Rams used to look like. If it's anywhere near as good as the Vikings recent update, I'll be happy with it.

So, we'll probably get blue and yellow back, but the uniforms are going to be Nike-esque garbage that vaguely resembles what you'd expect the Rams to look like if they became a rollerball team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The return of the Rams is a huge deal for the NFL and all the more reason for them to push a fresh look for their newest market with only half assed connections to the identity of old because Nike. Seriously, we've faced this "keeping in line with our roots" rhetoric before in the Browns' recent revamp and look how that turned out. We can only hope they'll actually nail this one.

Does not compute. It's a big deal for the NFL, but what the hell does that have to do with them using a "fresh" look? If they return to LA and wear the colors and jerseys the fans loved already, it's no longer a big deal? The people of LA will shun the team because they want design elements that highlight Nike's newest technology? The League will be viewed as a failure for not wearing some instantly-dated Nike design?

Also, the Browns design is a cluster:censored: because they're run by imbeciles, but mostly specifically because they let Nike do whatever it wanted. The idea of keeping in line with their roots was always BS. They told Nike anything could change but the helmet (and obviously primary logo), and it all did. Nike gave them orange numbers on the home and road jersey, added a shadow to the numbers, reversed their traditional striping pattern on the white pants, cut off the stripes on the pants to put a wordmark, dropped their iconic sleeve stripes in favor of new striping, had said striping run across the chest, ORANGE STITCHING on the brown jersey, and then for good measure, added a big chest wordmark to make them look even more like a high school team.

The problem is, that was Nike trying to "keep in line with their roots" while updating a look that didn't need updating. It wasn't Nike trying to be "experimental" as with the Seahawks and Buccaneers, but it ended up being worse than both of those. This *was* Nike's attempt to modernize, and it's a flaming pile of crap. They are going to do something unnecessarily different, add nonsensical sublimated patterns and superfluous details, then come up with BS marketing speak about them paying homage to history by looking differently than they ever looked before. Sure, that's probably what is in store for the Rams, but it's not a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Niners fan, I'm happy with the Rams coming back to LA. Watching them as a kid, they were always the LA Rams and should have stayed that way. Less travel for both teams and now a true NFC "West" division.

In order to get some more time in thinking about a re-brand with logos and uniforms, unless they have already been in the works, they should just stick with the throwbacks that they have currently as the home and away and just recolor the logo. Keep these until the new stadium opens in 2019 and then release a total re-brand. This would also save them some money with using the uniforms they already have. It would also satisfy the LA fans that love the royal and yellow colors right away without half-assing a new logo and uniform so quickly. And you know the LA fans would buy up the leftovers of these jerseys so fast. It's a no brainer in my opinion.

Logo:los-angeles-rams-logo1.jpg?crop=114px%2C

Home Uniforms:usp_nfl__san_francisco_49ers_at_st_77208 w/ Blue socks

Away Uniforms:eugene-sims-nfl-tampa-bay-buccaneers-st. w/ Blue socks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The return of the Rams is a huge deal for the NFL and all the more reason for them to push a fresh look for their newest market with only half assed connections to the identity of old because Nike. Seriously, we've faced this "keeping in line with our roots" rhetoric before in the Browns' recent revamp and look how that turned out. We can only hope they'll actually nail this one.

Does not compute. It's a big deal for the NFL, but what the hell does that have to do with them using a "fresh" look? If they return to LA and wear the colors and jerseys the fans loved already, it's no longer a big deal? The people of LA will shun the team because they want design elements that highlight Nike's newest technology? The League will be viewed as a failure for not wearing some instantly-dated Nike design?

Also, the Browns design is a cluster:censored: because they're run by imbeciles, but mostly specifically because they let Nike do whatever it wanted. The idea of keeping in line with their roots was always BS. They told Nike anything could change but the helmet (and obviously primary logo), and it all did. Nike gave them orange numbers on the home and road jersey, added a shadow to the numbers, reversed their traditional striping pattern on the white pants, cut off the stripes on the pants to put a wordmark, dropped their iconic sleeve stripes in favor of new striping, had said striping run across the chest, ORANGE STITCHING on the brown jersey, and then for good measure, added a big chest wordmark to make them look even more like a high school team.

The problem is, that was Nike trying to "keep in line with their roots" while updating a look that didn't need updating. It wasn't Nike trying to be "experimental" as with the Seahawks and Buccaneers, but it ended up being worse than both of those. This *was* Nike's attempt to modernize, and it's a flaming pile of crap. They are going to do something unnecessarily different, add nonsensical sublimated patterns and superfluous details, then come up with BS marketing speak about them paying homage to history by looking differently than they ever looked before. Sure, that's probably what is in store for the Rams, but it's not a good thing.

They'll come out with some "anthracite" garbage that Nike Fanboys will love and justify it by saying something like "LA is Hollywood. Hollywood is the silver screen. The Rams will play a special brand of football. A cinematic struggle each gameday. The "Hollywood Silver" represents Los Angeles' glamorous past and the gridiron movie magic the Rams will create in the future."

Dumb people will eat this :censored: up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rams should never wear blue pants again. Ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They'll come out with some "anthracite" garbage that Nike Fanboys will love and justify it by saying something like "LA is Hollywood. Hollywood is the silver screen. The Rams will play a special brand of football. A cinematic struggle every gameday. The "Hollywood Silver" represents LA's glamorous past and the gridiron movie magic the Rams will create in the future."

Dumb people will eat this :censored: up.

The meme on this board among the far-out guys like our dear Dennis is that most of this board thinks anything designed after 1980 is bad, and that's just so dumb. I don't know where they get this. I generally like more traditional designs, but I also like a lot of stuff from the '90s and even more recently. I can't think of anybody on this board who flat-out says "every team should look like it did at the merger."

However, there absolutely is a number of people who think anything not recently-designed is bad. Most specifically, teams can never return to an old design. That's just stupid. If a design is good, it's good whether it was done in 1950 or 2016. To these people, if the Bears suddenly decided to dress like Oregon for five years, the Bears could never return to their current set because they had vacated it. Returning to that set would be "regressive" and they need to look like a modern football team. They could go back to the colors (maybe tweaked!), but they'd have to at least have truncated stripes on the pants with day-glow silver shadows on italicized numbers just to be new.

The Rams' colors should be exclusively: royal blue, athletic yellow/gold, and white. Full stop. No gray. No black. No navy. I've even accepted that they can't go back to the Super Bowl set because of the horns not transferring to new templates. Nike already does it on the current jerseys, but the jerseys shrink every year. So as anger-inducing as that line of thinking is, I can accept it. But outside of that, returning to the colors and specific uniforms the fans loved would not be regressive. They don't need to wear something newly designed just because they're changing uniforms or because LA has bright lights. It's nonsense.

The Rams should go to a modernized version of the Super Bowl 34 set. And by "modernized" I mean with a royal blue helmet. That's all the updating needed. Like I said, it's not going to happen, and they're probably going to stroll out in something like what the Browns wear, but the least they can do it make that design feature the colors the Rams wore when they last saw LA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.