Bmac

NHL 2017-18

Recommended Posts

I can't help but feel that "history" is selectively used to justify liking or disliking a particular uniform design. Not aimed at anyone in particular, just a recurring thing I've noticed in the NHL logo threads.

 

But, really, swapping out a logo doesn't somehow change the fact that the Colorado Avalanche have Stanley Cups and bottom-of-the-barrel seasons to their name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 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 the rangers never went all in on the lady liberties, they used them as 3rd's, they still always stuck with the classic look. Just like ottawa can use their =0= jersey as a third but should stick to their own look. It's called identity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wildwing64 said:

I can't help but feel that "history" is selectively used to justify liking or disliking a particular uniform design. Not aimed at anyone in particular, just a recurring thing I've noticed in the NHL logo threads.

 

But, really, swapping out a logo doesn't somehow change the fact that the Colorado Avalanche have Stanley Cups and bottom-of-the-barrel seasons to their name.

sure it wouldn't but that doesn't mean you should. You could also make boston start wearing the bear logo as their main logo and it wouldn't change their history either, but I doubt any of us want the B to go away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

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.

 

 

Why are we holding true to the idea that every pre-90's team must remain in a time-warp?  Why is that logic suddenly reversed if the team was born after?  So traditionalists can get their way 100% of the time?

Your examples of original six teams 'experimenting' don't really hold water.  Sure the Leafs added a bit of silver but their basic look was more or less intact.  Sure the Rangers experimented with an alternate (that's what alternates are for) but once again, their traditional look was used full time.

 

The Avalanche alternate, you want them to adopt full time, is essentially a Red Wings template with a few extra colours and an awkwardly shaped yoke.  The Panthers use a Canadiens template with shoulder numbers and weird military badges.  The Lightning use Leafs colours on a Red Wings template while Hurricanes use Red Wings colours on a Leafs template.  See where we're headed with this trend?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Morgo said:

 

Why are we holding true to the idea that every pre-90's team must remain in a time-warp?  Why is that logic suddenly reversed if the team was born after?  So traditionalists can get their way 100% of the time?

Your examples of original six teams 'experimenting' don't really hold water.  Sure the Leafs added a bit of silver but their basic look was more or less intact.  Sure the Rangers experimented with an alternate (that's what alternates are for) but once again, their traditional look was used full time.

 

The Avalanche alternate, you want them to adopt full time, is essentially a Red Wings template with a few extra colours and an awkwardly shaped yoke.  The Panthers currently use a Canadiens template with shoulder numbers and weird military badges.  The Lightning use Leafs colours on a Red Wings template while Hurricanes use Red Wings colours on a Leafs template.  See where we're headed with this trend?

Exactly, 06 teams play around with third jerseys while 90's teams end of getting rid of their main look which many of them have had since day 1 so they can look like team from a completely different era. The only team that should look anything like montreal...IS MONTREAL! Florida should always look like the panthers in one form or another. 

 

If you look at teams like mtl, boston, nyr, the leafs they've all kind of played around with their looks over the past century but they've always stayed true to their roots, and rightfully so that's how you build brand identity. So why do all these new era teams from the 90's flush their looks away and some how this is viewed as progress? You can't out classic a classic team, no one can pull off the chest stripe like montreal can, and no one should even try, they'll always be second rate no matter how good. 

 

Everyone should be trying to find their own unique style that has some sort of connection to when they came into the league. Putting on someone else's jersey shouldn't even be a thought, it's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard and the fact that so many teams are doing it and many are even getting praised for it is completely astounding. 

 

How would you guys like it if tomorrow st louis came out with a new uni and it had a logo that looked like it belonged in a completely different sport and they slapped it onto a re-colored blackhawks jersey? Because that's what you have with florida!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with singular team names. There is also nothing wrong with traditional "dress up", if it looks good, that's all that should matter IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the Panthers as "original six dress up" at all. Modern number font, first team to put the tv number above the shoulder patch and that was a risky choice, a logo set that is very modern, the chest stripe not continuing to the back is subtly modern, and the size of their stripes and color blocking are modern as well. Meaning, they wear blue pants and helmets but it doesn't really appear in the jerseys outside of the logos and numbers. If that uni came out in the 90's every color would've been crammed into every part of the uniform and it would've been a busy mess. I like that they kept it simple.  

 

Their uniforms have really grown on me since they introduced them. There's more than enough differences between what they did and Montreal for me to give it a pass. If you want to direct your ire at a Florida team for this then Tampa is right there in the most shameless ripoff that I can think of in any pro sport. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

I don't see the Panthers as "original six dress up" at all. Modern number font, first team to put the tv number above the shoulder patch and that was a risky choice, a logo set that is very modern, the chest stripe not continuing to the back is subtly modern, and the size of their stripes and color blocking are modern as well. Meaning, they wear blue pants and helmets but it doesn't really appear in the jerseys outside of the logos and numbers. If that uni came out in the 90's every color would've been crammed into every part of the uniform and it would've been a busy mess. I like that they kept it simple.  

 

Their uniforms have really grown on me since they introduced them. There's more than enough differences between what they did and Montreal for me to give it a pass. If you want to direct your ire at a Florida team for this then Tampa is right there in the most shameless ripoff that I can think of in any pro sport. 

tampa is guilty of it too, but even though i like the the panthers new font all the little subtleties in the uniform don't change the fact that they wear a very similar look to montreal. Even the color balance is almost exactly the same as Montreal, blue helmet, red jersey, blue pants, red socks. I don't really find the size of their stripes to be modern either, i can't think of too many other teams that use such wide stripes these days, if any thing their stripes remind me more of what teams in the 70's like vancouver, st louis, the rockies and the north stars used. I like the the new color scheme too, and i like the new modernized version of the leaping cat. I think that logo should be front and center and their striping pattern shouldn't remind any one of any other team except florida. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their stripes are wide white stripes outlined with gold and they don't continue on the back. The Canadiens use thinner bright blue stripes outlined with white that wraparound the entire jersey. That is like saying nobody can use a yoke because of the Bruins. To call the Canadiens blue and the Panthers blue the same thing would be akin to saying the Blue Jackets and the Rangers have matching uniforms. Or the Wild and Stars have indecipherable greens. They're different colors and the Panthers also have a third color thrown in for good measure. 

 

Outside of both teams wearing red and having a chest stripe the similarities end there. And because Montreal doesn't use the chest stripe on the white jerseys while Florida does then Florida is the only team currently using a chest stripe on white jerseys. 

 

It never even occurred to me that they were structurally similar until this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, the Avalanche have never had a good look. The original, the Edge horrors, and the "weed tourism" set all have problems. Heck, the original Rockies and Nordiques also looked awful. 

 

What would be wrong with shirking the aesthetic past of the team and of hockey in Colorado? They should try something original, something that could stand on its own. Define Colorado hockey for a new era. Joe Sakic and Patrick Roy aren't walking through that door, and coach Don Cherry and Lanny McDonald aren't either. I think @the admiral said something similar with the Mariners, and I think it applies here too.

 

The Wild name isn't horrendous, but it's not great either. An animal name fits with the primary, but given the state-centric branding the team uses, maybe the scenery name kind of fits. It's "meh" that's elevated by an excellent visual identity (or at least, one that has the potential to be excellent on the uniform front). They just need to emphasize green in their branding and get a consistent uniform template that makes good use out of their colors. A Kelly Green/Gold third sweater would also be nice, as a means to appease the vocal minority (like what the Astros do with the Tequila Sunrise panels on their batting practice uniforms).

 

The Senators can have the Roman theme and Barberpole coexist (my preference would be for them to wear their black pre-Edge third sweaters, but Adidas sucks at making metallic materials). The "O" logo is fine on the shoulders, and the centurion logos are good as distinctive crests (and their presence dissuades the historically dishonest practice of pretending that this team is the same team as the old Sens). However, should the team redesign the "O" to be a more captivating logo (like the @hockey week concept), then I'd be open for it being the primary.

 

The Stars look better now than they have in their entire history (both Minnesota and Dallas), the Lightning have always looked terrible, the Panthers went from "meh" to "meh," the Oilers should never have moved away from the uniform set worn by the greatest player in the sport's history (this will be their second time), and the Flames are wise to emphasize the classic uniforms.

 

Every team has an ideal look, but said look can come at any time in their history. Some teams should start fresh too, especially when the sheen of winning strips off of a less-than-optimal identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Morgo said:

Why are we holding true to the idea that every pre-90's team must remain in a time-warp?  Why is that logic suddenly reversed if the team was born after?  So traditionalists can get their way 100% of the time?

What are you getting at? "Traditionalists [getting] their way 100% of the time"? What the hell? What is this, Parliament? An election? Are we voting for Hockey Congress, who will then pass laws on who can wear what?

There are no "traditionalists" and there are no, I donno, "modernists"? These groups don't actually exist in any tangible way. There's just people. Individuals with individual tastes. No one group is going to seize control of the NHL, Adidas, or CCM or whatever and start demanding everyone dress like this or that.

I really don't get what you're saying. You're talking as if there are two factions vying for hockey jersey supremacy.

 

Here's how I see it. Montreal's worn the same basic design for a long, long time. They tinkered a lot in their early years though. They were blue and white at first. And then red and green. They did the barberpole thing at one point. Then they hit the current design and kept it. Why? Because it was a good design. Not because of any nebulous uniform philosophy that said "well this team should look like a 1900s team, ya know?" If that were the case they'd still look like this

 

So it's not some crime if the Avalanche or the Senators or the Panthers go with new looks (and it looks like all three with have completely new identities within three years). These teams are still young. If the Canadiens can go for blue and white to red and green to barberpole before settling on the uniform that would become the most famous look in hockey? Then the Panthers, Avs, and Sens can dump earlier 90s looks and try to find something with a bit more staying power.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

What are you getting at? "Traditionalists [getting] their way 100% of the time"? What the hell? What is this, Parliament? An election? Are we voting for Hockey Congress, who will then pass laws on who can wear what?

There are no "traditionalists" and there are no, I donno, "modernists"? These groups don't actually exist in any tangible way. There's just people. Individuals with individual tastes. No one group is going to seize control of the NHL, Adidas, or CCM or whatever and start demanding everyone dress like this or that.

I really don't get what you're saying. You're talking as if there are two factions vying for hockey jersey supremacy.

 

Of course not, that's silly.  But way to avoid the question I asked.  Why must every pre-90's team must remain in a time-warp and why is the reverse true for teams born after?  I think it's due to group-think and the current need to bandwagon on a trend.
 

Quote

Here's how I see it. Montreal's worn the same basic design for a long, long time. They tinkered a lot in their early years though. They were blue and white at first. And then red and green. They did the barberpole thing at one point. Then they hit the current design and kept it. Why? Because it was a good design. Not because of any nebulous uniform philosophy that said "well this team should look like a 1900s team, ya know?" If that were the case they'd still look like this.


This is a flawed argument.  Not only do those Canadien's jerseys pre-date the NHL but they were around for what, a year each?  Two tops?  The looks I'm defending were around from their inception to when the RBK Edge roll-out butchered them.
 

Quote

So it's not some crime if the Avalanche or the Senators or the Panthers go with new looks (and it looks like all three with have completely new identities within three years). These teams are still young. If the Canadiens can go for blue and white to red and green to barberpole before settling on the uniform that would become the most famous look in hockey? Then the Panthers, Avs, and Sens can dump earlier 90s looks and try to find something with a bit more staying power.

 

Those teams original looks didn't have staying power?  Why did they stick around from their inception until the Edge rollout?  That's 7 years after the 90's ended.  The Senators centurion look has been around longer than their original barberpoles.  The Panthers and Avalanche simply had their looks shoehorned onto restrictive uniform templates that didn't allow their progressive striping patterns to translate (at least not in the initial stages of the rollout, I'm sure it could be done now).  Subsequently, they were forced onto click-and-fill templates that undermined everything good about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

Their stripes are wide white stripes outlined with gold and they don't continue on the back. The Canadiens use thinner bright blue stripes outlined with white that wraparound the entire jersey. That is like saying nobody can use a yoke because of the Bruins. To call the Canadiens blue and the Panthers blue the same thing would be akin to saying the Blue Jackets and the Rangers have matching uniforms. Or the Wild and Stars have indecipherable greens. They're different colors and the Panthers also have a third color thrown in for good measure. 

 

Outside of both teams wearing red and having a chest stripe the similarities end there. And because Montreal doesn't use the chest stripe on the white jerseys while Florida does then Florida is the only team currently using a chest stripe on white jerseys. 

 

It never even occurred to me that they were structurally similar until this thread.

oh please a yoke because bruins use it! Tons of teams use a yoke don't try to compare that to the chest stripe montreal has used almost exclusively since forever now. And the rangers and blue jackets are nothing alike. At least come up with some good comparisons man! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

What are you getting at? "Traditionalists [getting] their way 100% of the time"? What the hell? What is this, Parliament? An election? Are we voting for Hockey Congress, who will then pass laws on who can wear what?

There are no "traditionalists" and there are no, I donno, "modernists"? These groups don't actually exist in any tangible way. There's just people. Individuals with individual tastes. No one group is going to seize control of the NHL, Adidas, or CCM or whatever and start demanding everyone dress like this or that.

I really don't get what you're saying. You're talking as if there are two factions vying for hockey jersey supremacy.

 

Here's how I see it. Montreal's worn the same basic design for a long, long time. They tinkered a lot in their early years though. They were blue and white at first. And then red and green. They did the barberpole thing at one point. Then they hit the current design and kept it. Why? Because it was a good design. Not because of any nebulous uniform philosophy that said "well this team should look like a 1900s team, ya know?" If that were the case they'd still look like this

 

So it's not some crime if the Avalanche or the Senators or the Panthers go with new looks (and it looks like all three with have completely new identities within three years). These teams are still young. If the Canadiens can go for blue and white to red and green to barberpole before settling on the uniform that would become the most famous look in hockey? Then the Panthers, Avs, and Sens can dump earlier 90s looks and try to find something with a bit more staying power.

 

 

the avs, panthers and sens have had these looks for over 2 decades now! All those canadiens jerseys you mentioned, and ill even include the barberpole ones too, didn't even last a combined total of 5 years! Try again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rollins Man said:

oh please a yoke because bruins use it! Tons of teams use a yoke don't try to compare that to the chest stripe montreal has used almost exclusively since forever now. And the rangers and blue jackets are nothing alike. At least come up with some good comparisons man! 

 

1 minute ago, Rollins Man said:

the avs, panthers and sens have had these looks for over 2 decades now! All those canadiens jerseys you mentioned, and ill even include the barberpole ones too, didn't even last a combined total of 5 years! Try again!

 

Dude, don't take these defenses of the Panthers' identity so personally. It just makes you look obstinate.

 

The same goes for people on all sides of the debate here. Y'all should try to be moderate, try to concede points, and don't take this forum discussion as some "battle for superiority." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

Meh, the Avalanche have never had a good look. The original, the Edge horrors, and the "weed tourism" set all have problems. Heck, the original Rockies and Nordiques also looked awful. 

 

What would be wrong with shirking the aesthetic past of the team and of hockey in Colorado? They should try something original, something that could stand on its own. Define Colorado hockey for a new era. Joe Sakic and Patrick Roy aren't walking through that door, and coach Don Cherry and Lanny McDonald aren't either. I think @the admiral said something similar with the Mariners, and I think it applies here too.

 

The Stars look better now than they have in their entire history (both Minnesota and Dallas), the Lightning have always looked terrible, the Panthers went from "meh" to "meh," the Oilers should never have moved away from the uniform set worn by the greatest player in the sport's history (this will be their second time), and the Flames are wise to emphasize the classic uniforms.

 

Every team has an ideal look, but said look can come at any time in their history. Some teams should start fresh too, especially when the sheen of winning strips off of a less-than-optimal identity.

I get what you're trying to say but why can the avalanche change their jerseys/brand that has a history of endless legends including maybe even the greatest goalies of all time and two championships in 5 years but the oilers should have never changed there look? I don't think the avs original look was bad, it looks a little dated by todays standards and should be updated, but i don't think they should just start fresh? The oilers have sucked for a while now, does that mean they should drop the gretzky jerseys again now that they're sort of associated with losing for the past decade? I think a good look is a good look and it should stick through thick and thin.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

 

Dude, don't take these defenses of the Panthers' identity so personally. It just makes you look obstinate.

 

The same goes for people on all sides of the debate here. Y'all should try to be moderate, try to concede points, and don't take this forum discussion as some "battle for superiority." 

sorry, but these points you're making a really reaching. You can't compare something as common as a yoke to something so attached with montreal like that chest stripe. Show any hockey a fan a jersey with that stripe or any chest tripe and im sure most if not all will associate it with the habs at first glance. That's like saying no one can wear blue cause toronto did it first or something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rollins Man said:

I get what you're trying to say but why can the avalanche change their jerseys/brand that has a history of endless legends including maybe even the greatest goalies of all time and two championships in 5 years but the oilers should have never changed there look? I don't think the avs original look was bad, it looks a little dated by todays standards and should be updated, but i don't think they should just start fresh? The oilers have sucked for a while now, does that mean they should drop the gretzky jerseys again now that they're sort of associated with losing for the past decade? I think a good look is a good look and it should stick through thick and thin.  

 

That's more down to my personal preferences. I happen to like the Oilers' classic uniforms more than the Avs' dynasty-era set, and I also have a disconnect with the Avs' dynasty. Maybe it's because I didn't watch hockey in the '90's and always heard more about the Oilers' dynasty as I learned about the sport, I don't know. It could also be my distaste for the "dead puck" era in general. It's a bias that I should have clarified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

That's more down to my personal preferences. I happen to like the Oilers' classic uniforms more than the Avs' dynasty-era set, and I also have a disconnect with the Avs' dynasty. Maybe it's because I didn't watch hockey in the '90's and always heard more about the Oilers' dynasty as I learned about the sport, I don't know. It could also be my distaste for the "dead puck" era in general. It's a bias that I should have clarified.

i also like the 80's oilers more than the 90's avs. And i'll agree there is a bit more history/legacy/success to edmonton's dynasty years but I still feel the avs can salvage this look. It certainly doesn't help that they've worn such bad jerseys for a decade now without any kind of positive change, but if they just cleaned the logo up a bit and found a jersey that has actual stripes or something, i think it could still work, like st louis, they just need a better template.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rollins Man said:

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.  

Kodiaks isn't generic and it rolls off the tongue better Minnesota Wild ...Kingdom? Bears? Animals? The Eagles, Falcons, Cardinals, Ravens, Seahawks disagree w/ your already taken animal reasoning for a pro sports league. Yes, Caps, Nationals, Mets, have teams w/ logos you could take a bunch of different ways. I guess the S on the end makes it okay to me. There's also teams like the Stanford Cardinal, a color but the logo is a tree, all kinds of WTF. At least the wild logo fits well enough w/ the meh name.

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.