Recommended Posts

Put the Rams in combinations of blue (a shade in between navy and royal), yellow and white.

The Chargers should adopt electric blue and volt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ice_Cap, I ran out of my quota of likes today, but I was going to say pretty much that verbatim. I also was going to throw in that black absolutely does not go with navy, and that royal blue is also too dark to work with it. Also, both teams in the Pitt-WVU game looked horrendous. That game was about taking the team away from the team and making it a Nike fashion show. And Kroenke very well might buy Nike's pitch that "this is what the kids like these days," but I hope he doesn't trot out the Rams in trash like that.

Your opinion is subjective, as is mine, but as someone who sells athletic uniforms and apparel for a living, and is educated in design - including color theory - Royal Blue is not too dark to contrast with Black, especially with Athletic Gold. I put a football team in that exact color scheme this year, who never had previously included Black in their Royal/Gold scheme, and they were tremendously well-received and looked fantastic - my opinion, but also everyone in that district felt the same. It works.

I can agree with there being less contrast between Black & Navy, but that doesn't mean they don't work. Adding Black to anything as a design accent, foundation, or outline provides contrast between competing colors - in this case, Royal and Gold - and allows them to "pop" more. In most cases (not all), Grey or Dark Grey does the same thing.

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.

While I agree with Volt that adding gray can help the team's colors pop, since my basketball team had three straight years where our new uniforms had grey in them, including last year where our home white jersey black text and gray trim, no orange to be found. But after three years of Orange, Black and Gray, having our new Nike throwback unis that have no gray at all is so clean that it makes our coaching staff wonder why we ever joined the gray bandwagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ice_Cap, I ran out of my quota of likes today, but I was going to say pretty much that verbatim. I also was going to throw in that black absolutely does not go with navy, and that royal blue is also too dark to work with it. Also, both teams in the Pitt-WVU game looked horrendous. That game was about taking the team away from the team and making it a Nike fashion show. And Kroenke very well might buy Nike's pitch that "this is what the kids like these days," but I hope he doesn't trot out the Rams in trash like that.

Your opinion is subjective, as is mine, but as someone who sells athletic uniforms and apparel for a living, and is educated in design - including color theory - Royal Blue is not too dark to contrast with Black, especially with Athletic Gold. I put a football team in that exact color scheme this year, who never had previously included Black in their Royal/Gold scheme, and they were tremendously well-received and looked fantastic - my opinion, but also everyone in that district felt the same. It works.

I can agree with there being less contrast between Black & Navy, but that doesn't mean they don't work. Adding Black to anything as a design accent, foundation, or outline provides contrast between competing colors - in this case, Royal and Gold - and allows them to "pop" more. In most cases (not all), Grey or Dark Grey does the same thing.

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.

So you're the one behind all the BFBS and GFGS crap. Everybody have your torches and pitchforks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a lot of people have brought up the "fearsome foursome" blue and white unis as a possibility (or a wish) for the Rams. i know Infrared is a big fan of those and so am i honestly, id even say theyre one of my top 5 or 6 favorite NFL unis ever. but let me explain why it doesn't work so well

they would be sharing a color palette (the blue is close enough) with the Colts. every NFL team is a national brand and therefore all 32 teams are competing for fans in every state ( and beyond) and require their own unique identity. the Rams / Colts unis are different enough, but identity only begins on the field. you have to think about merch/apparel as well. it would do the Rams a lot of good to introduce a 3rd color to a blue/white identity, whether thats yellow, gold, bronze or whatever. when you see 32 hats on a rack and yours stands out due to color, thats the start of a winning identity

Unfortunately, you're probably right about the branding issues a return to blue and white would bring. Looks like someone needs to tell the Colts it's time for some new colors. B)

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

Chargers_zpsh1ctdehk.jpg

I'm sold.

They should have gone with this look in 2000. I would like to see a pic of the home uniform photoshopped with yellow bolts and these helmets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a lot of people have brought up the "fearsome foursome" blue and white unis as a possibility (or a wish) for the Rams. i know Infrared is a big fan of those and so am i honestly, id even say theyre one of my top 5 or 6 favorite NFL unis ever. but let me explain why it doesn't work so well

they would be sharing a color palette (the blue is close enough) with the Colts. every NFL team is a national brand and therefore all 32 teams are competing for fans in every state ( and beyond) and require their own unique identity. the Rams / Colts unis are different enough, but identity only begins on the field. you have to think about merch/apparel as well. it would do the Rams a lot of good to introduce a 3rd color to a blue/white identity, whether thats yellow, gold, bronze or whatever. when you see 32 hats on a rack and yours stands out due to color, thats the start of a winning identity

Unfortunately, you're probably right about the branding issues a return to blue and white would bring. Looks like someone needs to tell the Colts it's time for some new colors. B)

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

Chargers_zpsh1ctdehk.jpg

I'm sold.

They should have gone with this look in 2000. I would like to see a pic of the home uniform photoshopped with yellow bolts and these helmets.

It's amazing what the yellow bolts do for that uniform,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ice_Cap, I ran out of my quota of likes today, but I was going to say pretty much that verbatim. I also was going to throw in that black absolutely does not go with navy, and that royal blue is also too dark to work with it. Also, both teams in the Pitt-WVU game looked horrendous. That game was about taking the team away from the team and making it a Nike fashion show. And Kroenke very well might buy Nike's pitch that "this is what the kids like these days," but I hope he doesn't trot out the Rams in trash like that.

Your opinion is subjective, as is mine, but as someone who sells athletic uniforms and apparel for a living, and is educated in design - including color theory - Royal Blue is not too dark to contrast with Black, especially with Athletic Gold. I put a football team in that exact color scheme this year, who never had previously included Black in their Royal/Gold scheme, and they were tremendously well-received and looked fantastic - my opinion, but also everyone in that district felt the same. It works.

I can agree with there being less contrast between Black & Navy, but that doesn't mean they don't work. Adding Black to anything as a design accent, foundation, or outline provides contrast between competing colors - in this case, Royal and Gold - and allows them to "pop" more. In most cases (not all), Grey or Dark Grey does the same thing.

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.

My opinion falls somewhere in the middle.. I agree that a bright, vivid royal blue with athletic gold (yellow) can absolutely "pop" and look stunning and beautiful on a black base.. I also agree that the dark grey was a nice one-off look for WV and helped showcase their colors nicely when done correctly (helmets were great having the yellow separate navy from grey, but other areas had muddling issues).. However, black and navy are an absolute no-no in any and every application.. It's a general fashion faux pas, and should never be worn together in street clothes, etc, so I feel very strongly that the same goes for sports apparel and uniforms.. The PITT uniforms in the photos above look like old sun-bleached uniforms, where certain areas were made from a different fabric that faded from sitting in the sun or repeated laundering.. It's the same feeling I get when looking at the Jets' jerseys with all the mismatched greens.. The two colors appear close enough in color that your brain wants to think they're supposed to be the same, which makes it look like a mistake or error to see what your brain interprets as two shades of the same color.. It also muddles up any navy accents on the jersey that aren't completely outlined by the Vegas gold (or washed out khaki as it appears on those jerseys).. The overall sensation I get when looking at those jerseys is that they're intended to be black and white, but over time, some black areas have faded to the point of having a blueish hue, and the white embellishments have grown dingy and stained with dirt and sweat over time.. It is the absolute furthest thing from the aesthetic a uniform should try to convey.. Personally, I'm a fan of a little bfbs and gfgs if done correctly, and I prefer color schemes that lend themselves to "popping" against black or dark grey bases, but navy is just one of those colors that can't work (WV is as good as it can get, and still not good enough for full time).. Navy absolutely has to be used in traditional applications (with secondary color on white base, or with white accents on secondary color base). I'm not surprised navy/black gear sells, but the ignorance of today's generation doesn't make it acceptable. Just like kids no longer care about chivalry, proper grammar, cursive handwriting, or face-to-face contact, it doesn't make it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind seeing the Chargers go with "zoomed in" bolts on the shoulder caps of new jerseys. (Try to picture it to your best ability)

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't want the Rams to use any of the St. Louis stuff... logo, colors etc. Go back to being the LA Rams.

grfbe07kghepvedhhyr2.gif

There are some elements from the old LA Rams that I just don't think would work today, this being one of them. LIke the old ram head logo, this wordmark just looks and feels outdated, and even attempting to modernize it won't make it look much different.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Living in the LA area, I'm glad we got a team finally. For the Rams, it would make a lot of sense to do this:

Obviously blue and yellow color scheme

Jerseys

Yellow home jersey. Yes, yellow. similar to the Color Rush jersey. It would be unique for the NFL and go well with a team from California.

Away jersey based on the one used until 2000.

The alternate as a throwback to the blue and white era. (Blue jersey). It would pay homage to that era of LA Rams football. It won't violate the NFL's one-helmet rule, as the yellow ram decal can be replaced with a white one easily.

Pants

White pants with a blue/yellow/blue striping; worn with both yellow and white jerseys

yellow pants as the same as the Rams' current throwback pants; worn with white jerseys predominantly, can be worn with home jersey for a game or two

throwback white pants identical to the ones in the 60s; worn with the throwback jersey only

I hope this is how it goes, and it can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps because they won their lone Super Bowl there and 3 of the greatest players in franchise history - Warner, Faulk, and Bruce - played there? In the end, it's a new chapter in franchise history, so there's an argument that can easily be made that neither previous color combination should be utilized. This is a way to respect franchise histories in both cities. Just because the fans want throwbacks, doesn't mean that's what the NFL or the franchise want.

Here's the thing. Neither of us know what the franchise wants (what the NFL wants is irrelevent, uniform design is handled on a team by team basis). The difference is that you're couching your opinions and your LA Rams uniform wish list in phrases like "I have a gut feeling," "I work in the athletic apparel industry so my gut feelings matter," "I know what's popular," and "I back my gut feelings up with colour theory." Never mind that you've never actually explained the "theory" behind your subjective opinions. You've just thrown the term out there and expect that to instantly validate your opinion and elevate it above what it is. Wish is just your opinion. No more, no less.

So please. Stop couching your own subjective opinion in terms designed to pass it off as a pseudo-legitimate rumour. We have Reddit for that, thank you very much.

I didn't say they should drop Navy, I said to differentiate themselves from the Rams, they could swap Powder Blue to their primary color and move Navy to an accent. I don't know Dean Spanos well enough to call him up and ask him, but ultimately, it's a business decision, and one that makes sense assuming the LA Rams were to keep Navy, the assumption I was making in my post.

You don't need to know Dean Spanos personally to know that he's both a terrible businessman and will always choose navy over powder blue as the team's primary colour. All of that came out in the years leading up to the team's last rebrand when they were wearing the powder blue throwbacks twice a year. There was considerable pressure from the fans to have the throwbacks elevated to primary status, but that didn't go anywhere because Dean Spanos prefers navy. Adding powder blue as a trim colour was his way of throwing the powder blue-crazy fans a bone.

It's not surprising that his attempt to please everyone ended up not pleasing anyone.

You completely missed my point. I'm just referring to a new era in franchise history. It has nothing to do with the culture of LA or other existing teams; it's just a recommendation that would be new, signifying this new time and new start back in LA. Just because the team moves back, doesn't mean the uniforms have to move back 20 years, too.

When you said you wanted to see them navy because it would represent "new LA" I assumed, naturally, that meant that you thought the colour represented LA in some way. Or the concept of "new LA," whatever that means.

Changing looks to coincide with an era is a generally terrible idea. Eras come and go. Changing things up every time someone arbitrarily decides it's a new era of Rams football is a good way to hamper the long term brand.

Look at the marquee teams of each league. The Packers, Yankees, Lakers, Canadiens. Sure, they tweak their looks now and then but by and large? They always keep the same identity. That's the gold standard teams need to strive for. A consistent, long-term look that they can own for decades to come. Not coming up with trendy garbage every five to ten years. The Yankees are always white with navy blue pinstripes. No one knows what the Padres' colour scheme is anymore. Be more like the Yankees, Rams.

As for the uniforms throwing back twenty years...I see no problem with that if what was worn twenty years ago is better than what the team wears now. Which is the case for the Rams.

What does WVU have to do with the Rams? I didn't say at all that they did; I simply made a reference to how Nike has used Navy & Athletic Gold well with their recent uniforms. As I just posted in another reply, basic color theory states that when placing 2 primary colors on a contrasting neutral - black, white, or grey - they are accentuated. You're using a contrasting neutral as a base, rather than one of the primaries on top of another primary. Black would not muddle Royal/Gold as I've executed it as well and it is a different tone, as is Grey with Navy/Gold. The colors do not "pop" on their own, because they are similar tonally and lack distinct contrast.

It's obvious from your comment that you are anti-Nike, thus your disrespectful tone and damning of a clearly subjective opinion which is actually backed up with actual theory.

I'm not anti-Nike, I'm anti-ugly uniform. What you've described...a navy, athletic gold, black/grey uniform? That's an ugly uniform.

Now as for the colour theory stuff? I've already addressed that. You can't just say "my opinion is better than yours because colour theory!" You actually need to explain it. There are posters here who have proven that they know their stuff when it comes to colour theory. One of them even liked the post where I said your proposed scheme(s) wouldn't work.

I respectfully disagree. I feel this is dated and bland. The absence of Powder Blue is a negative.

It's funny that you're calling something dated, because that's what your proposed LA Rams uniforms would be in under ten years. You said it yourself. Grey and black is in. It's a trend. And all trends pass.

As for the Chargers...every look prior to the current clown suits worked. The navy. The powder blue. The Pacific blue. The various shades of royal. They all worked in their own way. Would I like to see the Chargers in powder blue? Yeah, that would be nice. They don't need to be in it to make it work though. The pic McCarthy posted took the previous navy uniforms, which were already very solid, and made them fresh again by simply switching some colours around on the bolt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per Paul Lukas: 1949 Rams, oh no.

CYnGRx9WcAAvo31.png

That's a cool little-known one year wonder, but I don't think there's any way the NFC West will have three teams with red as their primary color, including two red and gold teams. Too big of a rivalry between the 49ers and Rams for that to happen.

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.

John Clayton? I hope his sources are better than they were a couple days ago.

Listen: ESPN's John Clayton says he thinks NFL owners will vote to keep the Rams in St. Louis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Nike Team dealer for Lids Sports Group, disclaimer here that I have no idea or inside information on what they might do with the Rams' brand in LA.

I do have opinions based on my knowledge of the market and the industry. And I do not think for one second they will wear their current Navy/Gold sets for a day in LA.

I also do not think NFL will miss an opportunity to work with Nike to come up with something entirely new and fresh for LA. And my gut says it's been in the works for the past few years, but I truly have no idea.

However, I would not be surprised - or opposed - to see them keep elements of both segments of their past and adding something new, and by that I mean going with a Navy/Athletic Gold (Michigan) combination that takes Navy from St. Louis and Athletic Gold from LA. (If the Chargers are a lock to move, I could see them adopting the same Yellow the Chargers use, so that the stadium could be outfitted appropriately, but I believe in general they're going to keep that neutral and use LED boards everywhere for team graphics.)

Reasons I think this:

1. No one in the NFL currently uses Navy/Athletic Gold or Yellow exclusively (Chargers have Powder Blue as accent).

2. Pulls 1 color from both cities' past.

Why would the Rams want to honour anything about St. Louis? The new Rams uniforms will be designed to appeal to the Rams fans in LA, who certainly don't want anything to do with the St. Louis era. The LA fans want royal and athletic gold. Will the uniforms be a straight throwback? Probably not, but I expect the old colours to carry over untouched.

Perhaps because they won their lone Super Bowl there and 3 of the greatest players in franchise history - Warner, Faulk, and Bruce - played there? In the end, it's a new chapter in franchise history, so there's an argument that can easily be made that neither previous color combination should be utilized. This is a way to respect franchise histories in both cities. Just because the fans want throwbacks, doesn't mean that's what the NFL or the franchise want.

3. Makes it easy for the Chargers to change Power Blue (beautiful, unique, energetic color) to being their primary color, with Navy and Yellow as secondary colors.

Dean Spanos loves navy. The powder blue highlights were added to try and appease the fanbase, which prefers powder blue. Point being that the Chargers will never drop navy for powder blue (or royal blue) so long as Spanos owns the team.

I didn't say they should drop Navy, I said to differentiate themselves from the Rams, they could swap Powder Blue to their primary color and move Navy to an accent. I don't know Dean Spanos well enough to call him up and ask him, but ultimately, it's a business decision, and one that makes sense assuming the LA Rams were to keep Navy, the assumption I was making in my post.

4. It's new and fresh and will be distinctly "new" LA.

It's not new. The Rams' colour rush uniforms this past season were athletic gold and navy. They were also worn in St. Louis.

I'm not sure how navy is "distinctly 'new' LA" either. Whatever "new LA" means. LA is awash in pro sports teams. The Lakers are purple and athletic gold. The Clippers are red, white, blue, and black. The Dodgers are royal blue with a bit of red. The Angels are red with a bit of navy. The Kings are black and silver. The Ducks are black, gold, and orange. Nothing really establishing navy as a "unique to LA" colour.

You completely missed my point. I'm just referring to a new era in franchise history. It has nothing to do with the culture of LA or other existing teams; it's just a recommendation that would be new, signifying this new time and new start back in LA. Just because the team moves back, doesn't mean the uniforms have to move back 20 years, too.

Nike has done a fantastic job with combos at WVU over the past half decade or so. I could certainly see Grey or Black - or BOTH - being added to make this team really stand out. Used as neutral bases and for outlining, they truly highlight the primary hues.

What does WVU have to do with the Los Angeles Rams? And how would grey or black help the Rams "stand out"? If anything those colours would muddle up the royal blue and athletic gold colour scheme. It pops on its own. It doesn't need anything else to "stand out." Certainly nothing from Nike's catalogue of bad NCAA football ideas.

What does WVU have to do with the Rams? I didn't say at all that they did; I simply made a reference to how Nike has used Navy & Athletic Gold well with their recent uniforms. As I just posted in another reply, basic color theory states that when placing 2 primary colors on a contrasting neutral - black, white, or grey - they are accentuated. You're using a contrasting neutral as a base, rather than one of the primaries on top of another primary. Black would not muddle Royal/Gold as I've executed it as well and it is a different tone, as is Grey with Navy/Gold. The colors do not "pop" on their own, because they are similar tonally and lack distinct contrast.

It's obvious from your comment that you are anti-Nike, thus your disrespectful tone and damning of a clearly subjective opinion which is actually backed up with actual theory.

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

Chargers_zpsh1ctdehk.jpg

Oh my G-d that's stunning.

I respectfully disagree. I feel this is dated and bland. The absence of Powder Blue is a negative.

i like this guy ^ . i think we're on the same wave length here as far as new branding opportunities for both teams. what we know from Nike (and the NFL who approves all new designs) is that they are all about pushing the latest trends on NFL teams. adding black, gray, or some other neutral color would not surprise me at all. whats going to happen in 2016, i dont know, but i think we will see changes for 2017, even if they're slight. i wouldn't expect major changes to the helmets, but then again look what Nike did with the Browns - nothing is sacred. Nike will certainly want these LA identities to have their own "thing".

what wil be most interesting to see is how Nike approaches this. because their 2015 CFB designs were dramatically different than the work they've done the previous 5 years. i hope that more timeless direction (Tennessee, Colorado, Wake) is implemented in the NFL.

a lot of people have brought up the "fearsome foursome" blue and white unis as a possibility (or a wish) for the Rams. i know Infrared is a big fan of those and so am i honestly, id even say theyre one of my top 5 or 6 favorite NFL unis ever. but let me explain why it doesn't work so well

they would be sharing a color palette (the blue is close enough) with the Colts. every NFL team is a national brand and therefore all 32 teams are competing for fans in every state ( and beyond) and require their own unique identity. the Rams / Colts unis are different enough, but identity only begins on the field. you have to think about merch/apparel as well. it would do the Rams a lot of good to introduce a 3rd color to a blue/white identity, whether thats yellow, gold, bronze or whatever. when you see 32 hats on a rack and yours stands out due to color, thats the start of a winning identity

Unfortunately, you're probably right about the branding issues a return to blue and white would bring. Looks like someone needs to tell the Colts it's time for some new colors. B)

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

Chargers_zpsh1ctdehk.jpg

I'm sold.

there you go! i like your thinking, just not for my Colts! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to say I don't know why people think the Rams shouldn't return to the blue and white just because the Colts wear blue and white? So what? Almost every team in the MLB wears blue or red, and yet all of them having template differences that you can tell them apart. It's the same thing. I can tell the blue and white Rams apart from the blue and white Colts in a second because they have entirely different template styling.

That said, I do prefer the blue and yellow, but I don't think a team shouldn't go back to an older, popular look just because another team in the league has the same colors.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to say I don't know why people think the Rams shouldn't return to the blue and white just because the Colts wear blue and white? So what? Almost every team in the MLB wears blue or red, and yet all of them having template differences that you can tell them apart. It's the same thing. I can tell the blue and white Rams apart from the blue and white Colts in a second because they have entirely different template styling.

That said, I do prefer the blue and yellow, but I don't think a team shouldn't go back to an older, popular look just because another team in the league has the same colors.

its not just that the Colts already "own" the palette, its about separating this team from everyone else. its not that you cant tell the uniforms apart, its about how the colors work in the marketplace. for the Lions, Panthers, and Cowboys who all share a silver/blue palette and whose uniforms are all colored similarly, they all push a different color as their primary on apparel. you'll find the Cowboys gear mostly navy, Panthers mostly black, and Lions honalulu blue. like i said before, identity only starts on the field - theres a whole other world beyond it where the identity lives, and when you have this chance to do something new, especially when 1 team can completely own a color (if the Rams adopt a yellow jersey they'd be the NFL's only team with one) thats the direction to go.

the baseball analogy is good, about 70% of the teams are red/blue, but that doesn't make it right; differentiation is 1 key to building a brand, thats the whole reason they exists, to separate 1 thing from all other things. look on a rack of hats and its the Orioles, A's, Pirates, etc that stand out. thats the kind of identity you want

and as Matt posted above, this is an opportunity to blend future, present, and past. there are things here that i don't expect to change heavily, but remember nothing is sacred to NFL/Nike. there will be changes and they will be new - in no way should anyone expect either team to simply adopt a throwback design, as much as a lot of us would like to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to say I don't know why people think the Rams shouldn't return to the blue and white just because the Colts wear blue and white? So what? Almost every team in the MLB wears blue or red, and yet all of them having template differences that you can tell them apart. It's the same thing. I can tell the blue and white Rams apart from the blue and white Colts in a second because they have entirely different template styling.

That said, I do prefer the blue and yellow, but I don't think a team shouldn't go back to an older, popular look just because another team in the league has the same colors.

its not just that the Colts already "own" the palette, its about separating this team from everyone else. its not that you cant tell the uniforms apart, its about how the colors work in the marketplace. for the Lions, Panthers, and Cowboys who all share a silver/blue palette and whose uniforms are all colored similarly, they all push a different color as their primary on apparel. you'll find the Cowboys gear mostly navy, Panthers mostly black, and Lions honalulu blue. like i said before, identity only starts on the field - theres a whole other world beyond it where the identity lives, and when you have this chance to do something new, especially when 1 team can completely own a color (if the Rams adopt a yellow jersey they'd be the NFL's only team with one) thats the direction to go.

the baseball analogy is good, about 70% of the teams are red/blue, but that doesn't make it right; differentiation is 1 key to building a brand, thats the whole reason they exists, to separate 1 thing from all other things. look on a rack of hats and its the Orioles, A's, Pirates, etc that stand out. thats the kind of identity you want

and as Matt posted above, this is an opportunity to blend future, present, and past. there are things here that i don't expect to change heavily, but remember nothing is sacred to NFL/Nike. there will be changes and they will be new - in no way should anyone expect either team to simply adopt a throwback design, as much as a lot of us would like to see it.

That's a good point, and I do agree the Rams really have a great chance to own yellow. A lot of people think the Color Rush jerseys might be a sign of what the LA Rams will look like, we'll see. At the very least, I do want the blue and white available as a throwback, assuming blue and yellow become the primary colors, based on this:

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.

This seems to imply exactly what I was thinking, that the Rams will ultimately have a new template, but borrow the iconic horns and the old colors (probably a slight change to the hues, though). I didn't realistically think they'd go on-field in 2019 with literally the same uniforms from the 70s-era blue and yellow, but they need to have something recognizable, too. The Rams are actually a pretty old team at this point, and people expect them to look a certain way.

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.