NHL 2017-18

[OnWis97]

12 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Ha! Sorry. No, not liking the same over-designed, dark stuff you like doesn't make me foolish. 

 

While a lot of this is objective? I don't believe the name "Wild" qualifies. It's a bad name, full stop. You are in a very distinct minority if you like it. 

 

The name "Wild" is bad, and was only salvaged by excellent logos and uniforms.

This is where I've always stood.

 

Even in Minnesota, a lot of people hate the name.  Some like it.  I have no sense of whether there's any "home team bias" for those who do.  I also have no sense of whether there's an age correlation (i.e., do very young people who don't even remember any "pre-Wild" like it better just because they are used to it?).

 

My wife thinks it's OK (and she's not from Minnesota and not much of an NHL fan).  She thinks it's no worse than Heat, Jazz, or Thunder.  I think it is worse because it's just too abstract. Heat is bad, but at least everyone knows what it means.  There's a football team in DC that stands in the way of Wild being the worst name in the Big 4.

 

11 hours ago, chcarlson23 said:

I could say that I like the WIld name, but that's almost definitely biased... However, it does roll off the tongue, I'll say. Minnesota Wild! 

I know you are quite a bit younger than I am...so I am curious, are you old enough to remember the North Stars even a little? If not, do you remember not having a team and when the team was named?  Just curious; looking for one anecdote about a correlation between age and liking the name.

 

Quote

The Wild's current road jersey is the best jersey in team history, with the inaugural white jersey coming in as a close second. I do like the current green alt, but it needs red...That's a little hard to do though, and look good. 

The Wild's current road jersey is pretty good and if they worked red into the sleeve/hem stripes, I think I'd agree with you that it's the best they've looked.  For all the love we (myself included) give the inaugural uniforms, I did not like the weird numbers or neckline.  The "Minnesota Wild NHL Hockey" patch was kinda lame, too.  It was generally a pretty solid modern look but I am with you that the traditional-based look of the current road is nice.  My favorite is the inaugural green jersey.  When the white jersey came out (for some reason well before the green one), my girlfriend (now wife) bought my one for my birthday.  It was a great gift (back in the days when replicas were actually of decent quality) and I pulled the jerk move of "can I return this; I think I am going to like the road jersey better when it comes out."  She was cool with it and that green jersey is still what I wear to games.

 

Regarding the current green jersey, it's awful.  I don't like the college-esque script style.  But forgetting that, as you say, it needs red.  Maybe the bear head could be a shoulder patch to at least not totally lose the logo.  Red outlines on the numbers.  Red in the yoke? (not sure how that would look).  I still would not like the uniform but at least it would represent the team's colors.

 

Quote

No... The Wild are a team that should be more traditional, while the Hurricanes should have a more modern branding. The hurricane warning pattern did just that... 

 

 

I am sure you'll get some push back on this.  But I think, despite the very modern logo, it works for the Wild to have a traditional look.  If the team asked me what to do, I'd say "Pull Hornets/Bobcats and get the North Stars name."  Just kidding.  I'd say to base the two uniforms on the current road jersey but do a better job integrating the colors...get some red along with that green on the stripes and mimic that on a green home jersey.  

 

It's just fine for the Wild to go with a traditional look, as they have with the current road jersey, so long as they don't try to look like a team that's been around forever.

 

Quote

Also, tonight was probably the last time you'll see the Wild's red jersey. I'm glad I got to see that in person! #RIP

I didn't really think about that but it's probably true.  

 

I don't hate the red jersey.  In fact, given that the original red Devils jersey is my favorite in NHL history, I rather like the color mix on the red jersey.  I am ok with the phantom yoke.  Some hem stripes would go a long way but the real problem, of course, is how they shrunk the logo.  That logo needs to be on its own.  The circle logo is a decent shoulder patch.

[IceCap]

11 hours ago, Rollins Man said:

Oh and by the way, I like non dark uniforms too (nashville, tampa, penguins, mighty ducks 3rd). I just don't want the entire league to dress up like it's 1976. 

No, you just want the league to dress up like it's 1999. 

 

11 hours ago, Rollins Man said:

im not saying you can't dislike it, by all means go ahead, but don't call it terrible like it's an indisputable fact. Once again looking foolish. Just because a distinct minority of people like the name doesn't make it bad either. Lots of people like crappy music but that doesn't make it good either. 

 

There is nothing wrong with the name, it works well considering the relevance of the wilderness to minnesota and also keeps the team to wearing green like the north stars did without going full blow throwback. Should they just be called the bears or some other boring generic animal name or maybe name them after some fictional character like johnny canuck?

Singular names are terrible. And that's not foolish. That's just good taste. Something you've proven time and again you lack. 

[The_Admiral]

10 hours ago, ColeJ said:

It's funny though because the Hurricanes are both an older franchise, and a franchise that has been in its current location longer than the Wild.

I'm not mad I just think it's funny

 

There's a football team in DC that stands in the way of Wild being the worst name in the Big 4.

I say "Redskins" but I don't say "Wild"

[chcarlson23]

6 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

I know you are quite a bit younger than I am...so I am curious, are you old enough to remember the North Stars even a little? If not, do you remember not having a team and when the team was named?  Just curious; looking for one anecdote about a correlation between age and liking the name.

Well I did just turn 18 this week, so I definitely din't remember the North Stars, but I do remember the inaugural sweaters, and the original red jersey. I also remember seeing on some sports channel, (maybe ESPN?) that the Wild had upset some team in the Playoffs... That was about 2003 

 

I do think that most of the singular names aren't as bad as most people here make them out to be. I don't know if my age has something to do with that, although it might... 

[Sport]

The current road uniforms that do a better job of matching their green alternate uniforms than the red regular uniforms need to make one small change before I can call them good. 

 

[ldconcepts]

1 minute ago, McCarthy said:

The current road uniforms that do a better job of matching their green alternate uniforms than the red regular uniforms need to make one small change before I can call them good. 

 

 

It may have more red, but that look is too Christmassy for my tastes. The red numbers already on the jersey do that job, IMO.

[Rollins Man]

4 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

No, you just want the league to dress up like it's 1999. 

 

Singular names are terrible. And that's not foolish. That's just good taste. Something you've proven time and again you lack. 

i don't want the league to dress up like its 1999, but ill take 1999 over 79 any day, at least it's within memory. Not sure what's wrong with a singular name. Perhaps the whole league can be names after some local creature or some historical figure and have no variety whatsoever, much like most teams looks in 79.  

[Rollins Man]

1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

The current road uniforms that do a better job of matching their green alternate uniforms than the red regular uniforms need to make one small change before I can call them good. 

 

i think they have enough red, now were borderline italian here. 

[Rollins Man]

13 hours ago, Fresno St. Alum said:

which part, the wilderness has all kinds of different looks that don't look similar. Wild isn't a good name to me. It's better than Dawgs or Catz or something like that, but Kodiaks, Grizzlies sound like better names and the logo would still work just fine. 

The wilderness, you know trees, lakes, the great outdoors. Kodiaks and grizzlies is another generic animal name, we already have plenty of that in nhl (panthers, penguins, ducks, sharks, coyotes, even nashville and vancouver use animals). At least with wild you can take it in a bunch of different directions and still include an animal if you'd like. Minnesota kodiaks doesn't really roll off the tongue, and grizzlies is already used in nba, not to mention we already have an nhl team named after bears.

 

I would compare the wild to the capitals, you can take it in a bunch of different ways and make a whole bunch of different looks/logos with it like Washington has with the white house in the eagle, the soaring eagle, the Washington monument and the still all work. Now imagine if they were called the washington eagles, a name already used in sports and another bird named team, now you've restricted yourself in terms of your logo and the theme is also overused.

 

I'm not saying wild name is chicago blackhawks level branding, but it's better than what anyone else has had to offer here.  

[Chromatic]

1 hour ago, ldconcepts said:

It may have more red, but that look is too Christmassy for my tastes. The red numbers already on the jersey do that job, IMO.

 

Its still extremely green heavy with a small amount of red trim. They have a beautiful, unique and fitting color scheme, but people always try to downplay it because it looks too "christmassy".  I hate that argument. Nobody rags on the Flyers for wearing halloween colours. Nobody cares that the Canadiens wear USA colors. Nobody cares that the Chiefs have McDonalds colors. Color schemes can be associated with more than one thing. When I look at the Wild's uniforms I don't think of Santa Claus I think of the Minnesota Wild.

[ldconcepts]

Just now, Chromatic said:

 

Its still extremely green heavy with a small amount of red trim. They have a beautiful, unique and fitting color scheme, but people always try to downplay it because it looks too "christmassy".  I hate that argument. Nobody rags on the Flyers for wearing halloween colours. Nobody cares that the Canadiens wear USA colors. Nobody cares that the Chiefs have McDonalds colors. Color schemes can be associated with more than one thing. When I look at the Wild's uniforms I don't think of Santa Claus I think of the Minnesota Wild.

 

I know what you mean, but I wasn't talking about their colour scheme (I love it personally), more about the particular striping pattern in the mockup.

[IceCap]

4 minutes ago, Rollins Man said:

i don't want the league to dress up like its 1999, but ill take 1999 over 79 any day, at least it's within memory. Not sure what's wrong with a singular name. Perhaps the whole league can be names after some local creature or some historical figure and have no variety whatsoever, much like most teams looks in 79.  

I don't know why you're fixating on 1979, but I was born in 1987. I was the target demographic during the period you regard as the "best" as far as NHL aesthetics go. So you'd think I would have some nostalgic attachment to the trendy, dark, overly-designed stuff you can't stop going on about, but no.

 

Me though? I have no memory of 1979. Or 1987 for that matter. Still? I'll take the classic Maple Leafs logo over the Ballard leaf. Or the Sabres in blue and gold over red and black. Or the Oilers in their Gretzky look over navy and copper. Not because I have any nostalgic attachment to the old leaf or blue and gold Sabres or royal and orange Oilers, because I don't. I just prefer those looks because they, in my opinion, just look better.

 

Circling back though, I've noticed a trend with you and a few other posters. It seems you're all ready to decry traditionalists like me because we like more traditional aesthetics and generally don't want teams with history to "update" or "evolve" as you put it.

Yet once we get to 90s looks? You all claim "NO UNTOUCHABLE!" It's hypocritical in a sense, but more so it's a migration of the holy. You're ready to jump down my throat because I think the Oilers should wear their vibrant historical uniforms, but if I dare suggest the Avalanche change something? You lose your mind. You have your own set of untouchables, and it makes discussing hockey on these forums a G-ddamn chore.

See, it's impossible to talk about the Senators maybe changing things in a year or two, or to get a well-reasoned discussion going about the new Panthers look. You decided you were against the Panthers redesign before we even got any leaks, and you've already decided that any Sens look that favours the original Senators over the Roman theme is bad.

 

TL;DR summary? You and the rest of the "90s!" crowd have become just as stubborn as us "traditionalists," it's just that you have a new list of "untouchable" sets. And it's made talking hockey uniforms frustrating because any suggestion that maybe the Senators should reflect the rich hockey tradition behind their name and city or that maybe the new Panthers look is petty neat in its own way is met by one stubborn group of users ready to throw around the word "travesty" over a difference of opinion.

 

Quote

Perhaps the whole league can be names after some local creature or some historical figure and have no variety whatsoever, much like most teams looks in 79.  

Hahah.

Yes, I do think team named based off of something or someone local are better than generic singular names.

[Morgan33]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

Circling back though, I've noticed a trend with you and a few other posters. It seems you're all ready to decry traditionalists like me because we like more traditional aesthetics and generally don't want teams with history to "update" or "evolve" as you put it.

There's a big difference between preferring traditional aesthetics and holding the opinion that everything from 90's is trash that should never be seen on the ice again.

 

Quote

Yet once we get to 90s looks? You all claim "NO UNTOUCHABLE!" It's hypocritical in a sense, but more so it's a migration of the holy. You're ready to jump down my throat because I think the Oilers should wear their vibrant historical uniforms, but if I dare suggest the Avalanche change something? You lose your mind. You have your own set of untouchables, and it makes discussing hockey on these forums a G-ddamn chore.

 

This is simply not true.  I don't think anyone is calling the Oilers navy set untouchable.  But how dare a poster call even one uniform set from that era as such. 

 

In the case of the Avalanche, we simply don't think they should flush their entire winning history down the drain to adopt a lazy re-colour of a logo that belongs to an entirely different franchise.  We also don't think they should go with a base colour (navy) that until 2 years ago was never used on a single one of their uniforms.  This is ironic considering it's the exact reason traditionalists cited when insisting the Sabres go back to blue and gold.  And they haven't won anything.

 

Quote

See, it's impossible to talk about the Senators maybe changing things in a year or two, or to get a well-reasoned discussion going about the new Panthers look. You decided you were against the Panthers redesign before we even got any leaks, and you've already decided that any Sens look that favours the original Senators over the Roman theme is bad.

The details of the Panthers re-design were known well before we saw the final product or a leak.  You couldn't go a day on these boards without seeing a mockup that looked pretty similar to what they eventually released.  The backlash against the change happened because we didn't want a 90's expansion team lazily adopting a Montreal Canadien's template when they previously had something that was both unique and attractive (inaugural look).  Now that the look has had time to settle in, I hold the same opinion I did when it was released.  The uniforms are just the latest lazy example of Original Six dress-up.  The striping is a bore, the logo is a downgrade and the military badges are a joke.  It has nothing to do with favoring 90's aesthetics, it's about valuing creativity and variety.
 

Quote

TL;DR summary? You and the rest of the "90s!" crowd have become just as stubborn as us "traditionalists," it's just that you have a new list of "untouchable" sets. And it's made talking hockey uniforms frustrating because any suggestion that maybe the Senators should reflect the rich hockey tradition behind their name and city or that maybe the new Panthers look is petty neat in its own way is met by one stubborn group of users ready to throw around the word "travesty" over a difference of opinion.

That's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it.  I'm also entitled to mine and it's the people who think every-single-damn-team has to adopt a 2 to 3 colour palette on a Canadiens or Red Wings template that are making this place an absolute bore.

[Rollins Man]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

I don't know why you're fixating on 1979, but I was born in 1987. I was the target demographic during the period you regard as the "best" as far as NHL aesthetics go. So you'd think I would have some nostalgic attachment to the trendy, dark, overly-designed stuff you can't stop going on about, but no.

 

Me though? I have no memory of 1979. Or 1987 for that matter. Still? I'll take the classic Maple Leafs logo over the Ballard leaf. Or the Sabres in blue and gold over red and black. Or the Oilers in their Gretzky look over navy and copper. Not because I have any nostalgic attachment to the old leaf or blue and gold Sabres or royal and orange Oilers, because I don't. I just prefer those looks because they, in my opinion, just look better.

 

Circling back though, I've noticed a trend with you and a few other posters. It seems you're all ready to decry traditionalists like me because we like more traditional aesthetics and generally don't want teams with history to "update" or "evolve" as you put it.

Yet once we get to 90s looks? You all claim "NO UNTOUCHABLE!" It's hypocritical in a sense, but more so it's a migration of the holy. You're ready to jump down my throat because I think the Oilers should wear their vibrant historical uniforms, but if I dare suggest the Avalanche change something? You lose your mind. You have your own set of untouchables, and it makes discussing hockey on these forums a G-ddamn chore.

See, it's impossible to talk about the Senators maybe changing things in a year or two, or to get a well-reasoned discussion going about the new Panthers look. You decided you were against the Panthers redesign before we even got any leaks, and you've already decided that any Sens look that favours the original Senators over the Roman theme is bad.

 

TL;DR summary? You and the rest of the "90s!" crowd have become just as stubborn as us "traditionalists," it's just that you have a new list of "untouchable" sets. And it's made talking hockey uniforms frustrating because any suggestion that maybe the Senators should reflect the rich hockey tradition behind their name and city or that maybe the new Panthers look is petty neat in its own way is met by one stubborn group of users ready to throw around the word "travesty" over a difference of opinion.

 

Hahah.

Yes, I do think team named based off of something or someone local are better than generic singular names.

i got no problem with traditional looks for more traditional teams, but i don't want everyone to have the same styled look, or logo, or name for that matter. I don't mind the oilers wearing vibrant colors, i don't mind their darker pallete either but i got no problem with the 80's oilers. And i dont know why you constantly imply that i want everyone in dark lifeless colors. I DON'T BUDDY! Just like I don't want everyone is bright gaudy colors. I like balance and variety unlike some people.

 

I don't want every team dressing like an 06 teams, but I don't want everyone dressing up in 90's gradients, and have angled stripes all over the place. I think teams like the leafs can wear the classic leaf if they want i got no problem with that either, THEY'RE A CLASSIC TEAM! But the avalanche aren't, the hurricanes aren't, the wild aren't, they should dress like the team they are and should always have some sort of connection to the era they spawned from, just like the 06 teams do.

 

I see nothing wrong with variety, some teams named after animals, some named after historic/local figures (blue jackets/hawks/devils), some named after something abstract (wild), some teams in more traditional looks, some teams in more modern experimental looks, some in darker color schemes, some in lighter. What is with you traditionalist who want to put every single team in same box and strip them of their individuality? Not every team is a "classic" team with a hundred years history behind them, and those that aren't should dress accordingly, otherwise it completely undermines the ACTUAL CLASSIC TEAMS.

 

Get it through your head, i like variety, i like certain looks from the 90's, but i dont want everyone in the league to look like that, because there are a lot of looks from the 70's and 80's and even earlier which I like also. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Rollins Man]

Also i don't claim all 90's looks untouchable, there is plenty of crap designs from the 90's that i never want to see again. But there were some really good one's mostly from the late 90's and early 00's that I think shouldn't have been tinkered with like calgary, carolina, ottawa and colorado. I just don't think these teams should go back to dressing up like the rockies, or the original senators to fix their jersey problems. They just need better templates.

[Rollins Man]

47 minutes ago, Morgo said:

There's a big difference between preferring traditional aesthetics and holding the opinion that everything from 90's is trash that should never be seen on the ice again.

 

 

This is simply not true.  I don't think anyone is calling the Oilers navy set untouchable.  But how dare a poster call even one uniform set from that era as such. 

 

In the case of the Avalanche, we simply don't think they should flush their entire winning history down the drain to adopt a lazy re-colour of a logo that belongs to an entirely different franchise.  We also don't think they should go with a base colour (navy) that until 2 years ago was never used on a single one of their uniforms.  This is ironic considering it's the exact reason traditionalists cited when insisting the Sabres go back to blue and gold.  And they haven't won anything.

 

The details of the Panthers re-design were known well before we saw the final product or a leak.  You couldn't go a day on these boards without seeing a mockup that looked pretty similar to what they eventually released.  The backlash against the change happened because we didn't want a 90's expansion team lazily adopting a Montreal Canadien's template when they previously had something that was both unique and attractive (inaugural look).  Now that the look has had time to settle in, I hold the same opinion I did when it was released.  The uniforms are just the latest lazy example of Original Six dress-up.  The striping is a bore, the logo is a downgrade and the military badges are a joke.  It has nothing to do with favoring 90's aesthetics, it's about valuing creativity and variety.
 

That's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it.  I'm also entitled to mine and it's the people who think every-single-damn-team has to adopt a 2 to 3 colour palette on a Canadiens or Red Wings template that are making this place an absolute bore.

100% agrree, everything morgo said is spot on.

[IceCap]

40 minutes ago, Morgo said:

There's a big difference between preferring traditional aesthetics and holding the opinion that everything from 90's is trash that should never be seen on the ice again.

I've never said everything 90s was trash. FFS, I was singing the praises of the Wild's innagural set a page back!

 

42 minutes ago, Morgo said:

The backlash against the change happened because we didn't want a 90's expansion team lazily adopting a Montreal Canadien's template...

Why are we holding true to the idea that every team born in the 90s needs to be stuck in a time warp?

If Original Six teams are allowed to experiment with their looks and mix things up (Maple Leafs with silver, Rangers' Lady Liberty alts) then there's no reason a team from the 90s can't experiment with more traditional look. Sometimes they work (Panthers) other times they don't (Lightning) but you see what I'm getting at? Your statement here implies that a 90s expansion team must always look like that, and that's what's boring. 

 

44 minutes ago, Morgo said:

That's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it.  I'm also entitled to mine and it's the people who think every-single-damn-team has to adopt a 2 to 3 colour palette on a Canadiens or Red Wings template that are making this place an absolute bore.

I've never advocated that every team look like the Canadiens and Red Wings, and I don't see anyone else advocating that either.

 

I have seen, however, people crying foul any time anyone suggests that maybe, just maybe, the Senators should play up the =O= or that the Panthers' new look is just as good as the innagural look in different ways.

 

[IceCap]

8 minutes ago, Rollins Man said:

What is with you traditionalist who want to put every single team in same box and strip them of their individuality?

I never said I wanted to do that. Can you find a single instance of saying every team needs to look like the Red Wings?

 

6 minutes ago, Rollins Man said:

Also i don't claim all 90's looks untouchable, there is plenty of crap designs from the 90's that i never want to see again. But there were some really good one's mostly from the late 90's and early 00's that I think shouldn't have been tinkered with...

So you claim you don't think 90s looks are untouchable and then say there are some 90s looks that shouldn't be tinkered with. Good talk. 

 

10 minutes ago, Rollins Man said:

Get it through your head, i like variety...

I don't give a crap what you like. Like whatever you want. I take issue with you and @Morgo trying to shut down discussion every time someone suggests that maybe a team from the 90s move away from their 90s roots.

[Rollins Man]

4 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I've never said everything 90s was trash. FFS, I was singing the praises of the Wild's innagural set a page back!

 

Why are we holding true to the idea that every team born in the 90s needs to be stuck in a time warp?

If Original Six teams are allowed to experiment with their looks and mix things up (Maple Leafs with silver, Rangers' Lady Liberty alts) then there's no reason a team from the 90s can't experiment with more traditional look. Sometimes they work (Panthers) other times they don't (Lightning) but you see what I'm getting at? Your statement here implies that a 90s expansion team must always look like that, and that's what's boring. 

 

I've never advocated that every team look like the Canadiens and Red Wings, and I don't see anyone else advocating that either.

 

I have seen, however, people crying foul any time anyone suggests that maybe, just maybe, the Senators should play up the =O= or that the Panthers' new look is just as good as the innagural look in different ways.

 

And we never advocated for every team to dress up like it's 1998 either, but you happily stuck those words in my mouth. 

 

And there is nothing experimental abut the panthers look, they just took another teams template and but a weak soccer logo on it. Just like carolina, dallas and tampa took another teams template and put they're logo on it. That not experimental, it's just lazy. And the senators can play up the =0= too, i got no problem with that either, but they'll always be the centurion senators, since day 1. Just like the avs will never be the rockies.

 

And please don't try to make it sound like the leafs have overhauled they're uniforms either, they just play around with the leaf shape and stripes, for the most part they have always worn practically the same thing. Tweeking and completely flushing your teams history and identity down the toilet is NOT the same thing so don't try to make that comparison.  

[Rollins Man]

4 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I never said I wanted to do that. Can you find a single instance of saying every team needs to look like the Red Wings?

 

So you claim you don't think 90s looks are untouchable and then say there are some 90s looks that shouldn't be tinkered with. Good talk. 

 

I don't give a crap what you like. Like whatever you want. I take issue with you and @Morgo trying to shut down discussion every time someone suggests that maybe a team from the 90s move away from their 90s roots.

A 90's team shouldn't move away from it's roots, it's the teams histroy for goodness sake! Just like the 06 teams should always have a more old time feel to their look/logos, the 90's teams should too. They can modernize them like nashville did, put you don't try to turn colorado into the rockies or the panthers into the canadiens or the wild into the "kodiaks".

 

Come up with something that's better and ill listen, just lazily go back to the past and slap your logo on someones else's jersey isnt going to go far with me!