NHL 2017-18

[joepro]

I really miss the original Florida jerseys. That being said, their current jerseys are way better looking than Montreal's. Better colours, better logo, interesting patches, interesting number font. Montreal's jerseys, that everyone thinks are iconic, are actually quite boring.

[Rollins Man]

18 minutes ago, joepro said:

I really miss the original Florida jerseys. That being said, their current jerseys are way better looking than Montreal's. Better colours, better logo, interesting patches, interesting number font. Montreal's jerseys, that everyone thinks are iconic, are actually quite boring.

i like everything about floridas jersey except the main logo and chest stripe, move the stripe down to the waist and put the new leaping panther on the front. put the soccer logo on the helmet. 

[joepro]

1 minute ago, Rollins Man said:

i like everything about floridas jersey except the main logo and chest stripe, move the stripe down to the waist and put the new leaping panther on the front. put the soccer logo on the helmet. 

I thought that about the logos too but their main logo has actually grown on me and I now like it better than the leaping Panther. This coming from a guy who hunted out an old McDonalds replica of Vanbeisbrouck's mask on eBay.

[Rollins Man]

2 hours ago, McCarthy said:

 

I don't read with my ears. That's a lot of similarities if you ignore all of their obvious differences.  

 

Just the fact that their helmets and pants are different shades of blue and that the sock and chest stripes are wildly different from one another is enough. That's not even talking about the logos or the Panthers use of gold. 

 

 

Yeah I read it. Your argument only makes sense if you ignore everything that differentiates the two. They aren't wearing the same template. 

 

 

Wait. I thought they weren't using the same color scheme. Which is it?

What I have a hard time getting through my head is how you think these two teams are too similar or that one team so owns the concept of a chest stripe that anyone else doing anything similar to it even in vastly different colors is the same template. 

it's not the exact same color scheme but the colors are the same in the end, red and blue. And they are used in almost the exact same way, and a little sand trim aint enough to distinguish them, And florida and montreal do not wear vastly different colors, the blue is just a bit darker. They templates should be different. It's like when everyone was wearing the same edge template in 2007. It looks bad and lazy.

[Chromatic]

It really bothers me that Florida's chest stripe doesn't go all the way around. I think its a major flaw on a good jersey. I put it in the same category as "piping to nowhere" and the Oiler's stripes that only covered the inside of their elbow.

[Chewbacca]

46 minutes ago, joepro said:

I really miss the original Florida jerseys. That being said, their current jerseys are way better looking than Montreal's. Better colours, better logo, interesting patches, interesting number font. Montreal's jerseys, that everyone thinks are iconic, are actually quite boring.

 

[Chromatic]

7 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

 

I half agree with him. Montreal has always been interesting to me because I think their home uniforms are probably the best in the league, but their whites are the worst. I understand history and this is an unpopular opinion and blah blah but even the century of tradition those away uniforms are steeped in can't redeem them in my eyes.

[IceCap]

18 hours ago, Morgo said:

Of course not, that's silly.

It is. And yet you implied it.

 

18 hours ago, Morgo said:

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.

First off, I didn't avoid anything. I took your rediculous statement and called out how ridiculous it was.

Secondly, I'm saying all uniform design pre-90s was a lot more fluid than you're making it out to be. It's not like the Maple Leafs, Bruins, Rangers, Red Wings, Canadiens, and Blackhawks debuted with their iconic looks and said "well that's that for a hundred years."

And yet there are uniform sets from the 90s that you and others are insisting are untouchable. If the O6 took that philosophy? We'd still have the Toronto Arenas and the Detroit Cougars playing each other because the changes that led us to the Maple Leafs and Red Wings would have been shot down as not being reflective of their "early 1900s roots."

 

18 hours ago, Morgo said:

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.
 

 

17 hours 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!

So you don't like the Canadiens analogy? Ok.

 

The Chicago Blackhawks were founded in 1926. The earliest form of the uniform that would become their current primary look debuted in 1955. That means that the Blackhawks were around for 29 years before they settled on their "classic" look. They wore black and white for nine years, and wore a variation of black, red, and white baberpole for 18 years.

Yet according to the arguments you two are putting forward? The 1955 redesign would have been "trash" for "throwing away" the team's history up to that point. And yet that 1955 redesign gave us the basis of what some consider the best hockey set of all time. A true classic was born from what you two are arguing would have been a mistake.

 

Of course I could keep going. The Boston Bruins were founded in 1924. They were a gold a brown team for the first ten years of their existence. A simple block B was the primary logo for 17 of their first 25 years. The spoked B, widely regarded as iconic, didn't even appear on all of the team's sweaters until 1955, 31 years after the team was founded. And like the 'Hawks '55 redesign? The Bruins' 1955 redesign served as the basis for the classic Bruins look they've stayed with ever since. And like the 'Hawks? It took a couple decades playing with the identity to get there.

 

I could go on. About how the Maple Leafs were green and white for the majority of the team's first decade of existence. And how they didn't even become the Maple Leafs until ten years after they started playing. Or how the Red Wings similarly took a few years with different names before they even became the iconic Red Wings we all know today. Or what about the Penguins? It took them thirteen years to even get to black and gold!

 

My point is that if the Boston Bruins can go from this to this to this to this and the Blackhawks can go from this to this to this to this to this? Then the Avs going from this to this to this...

 

...isn't the historical travesty you say it is. "Oh the Avs and Panthers had their 90s looks for decades!" Yeah, and some O6 teams wore stuff for decades before ditching it in favour of newer designs that had more staying power.

 

[Rollins Man]

12 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

It is. And yet you implied it.

 

First off, I didn't avoid anything. I took your rediculous statement and called out how ridiculous it was.

Secondly, I'm saying all uniform design pre-90s was a lot more fluid than you're making it out to be. It's not like the Maple Leafs, Bruins, Rangers, Red Wings, Canadiens, and Blackhawks debuted with their iconic looks and said "well that's that for a hundred years."

And yet there are uniform sets from the 90s that you and others are insisting are untouchable. If the O6 took that philosophy? We'd still have the Toronto Arenas and the Detroit Cougars playing each other because the changes that led us to the Maple Leafs and Red Wings would have been shot down as not being reflective of their "early 1900s roots."

 

 

So you don't like the Canadiens analogy? Ok.

 

The Chicago Blackhawks were founded in 1926. The earliest form of the uniform that would become their current primary look debuted in 1955. That means that the Blackhawks were around for 29 years before they settled on their "classic" look. They wore black and white for nine years, and wore a variation of black, red, and white baberpole for 18 years.

Yet according to the arguments you two are putting forward? The 1955 redesign would have been "trash" for "throwing away" the team's history up to that point. And yet that 1955 redesign gave us the basis of what some consider the best hockey set of all time. A true classic was born from what you two are arguing would have been a mistake.

 

Of course I could keep going. The Boston Bruins were founded in 1924. They were a gold a brown team for the first ten years of their existence. A simple block B was the primary logo for 17 of their first 25 years. The spoked B, widely regarded as iconic, didn't even appear on all of the team's sweaters until 1955, 31 years after the team was founded. And like the 'Hawks '55 redesign? The Bruins' 1955 redesign served as the basis for the classic Bruins look they've stayed with ever since. And like the 'Hawks? It took a couple decades playing with the identity to get there.

 

I could go on. About how the Maple Leafs were green and white for the majority of the team's first decade of existence. And how they didn't even become the Maple Leafs until ten years after they started playing. Or how the Red Wings similarly took a few years with different names before they even became the iconic Red Wings we all know today. Or what about the Penguins? It took them thirteen years to even get to black and gold!

 

My point is that if the Boston Bruins can go from this to this to this to this and the Blackhawks can go from this to this to this to this to this? Then the Aves going from this to this to this...

 

...isn't the historical travesty you say it is. "Oh the Avs and Panthers had their 90s looks for decades!" Yeah, and some O6 teams wore stuff for decades before ditching it in favour of newer designs that had more staying power.

 

if you have to go back to ww2 to find a weak comparison that says it all. It was a completely different era. And the blackhawks almost always used the blackhawk logo, just played around with the striping and colors, which were almost always red, black, white, so they just updated it which was inevitable.

 

And the bruins were going to have to update their look sooner or later too. Way too many stripes, plus they almost always had the B and yellow. The leafs were not even the leafs when they were wearing green except their first year, they were the st. pats. The penguins kept their logo and yellow as well.

 

And from what im seeing none of those teams took another teams logo that existed before them and tried to pass it off as their own. Keep trying champ.   

[IceCap]

Just now, Rollins Man said:

if you have to go back to ww2 to find a weak comparison that says it all.

Not really. A lot of the teams in this league are really old. If we're going to compare the first few decades of uniform history of, say, the Florida Panthers to the Chicago Blackhawks? Yeah, we're going to be paying the 20s and 30s a visit. It's not about reaching back. It's just research.

 

2 minutes ago, Rollins Man said:

It was a completely different era.

Yes and no. We're more brand-conscious now, but the team that "gets it right the first time" is very rare. Take any sport, and find the most iconic look. I guarantee you the team didn't start off with it.

Even if we account for the evolution of branding and marketing? The fact remains that teams changing up their looks and tinkering during their first 20-30 years of existence has remained relatively consistent. If it took the Blackhawks nearly thirty years to settle on their iconic look? Who's to say the Avs or Panthers will be any different?

Who knows? In 70 years? The Avs' 1996 mountain striping may be viewed in the same way we view the Blackhawks' barberpole. A kind of weird and dated element from the team's early seasons.

 

2 minutes ago, Rollins Man said:

And from what im seeing none of those teams took another teams logo that existed before them and tried to pass it off as their own. Keep trying champ.   

Nah, I think I've nailed it, personally.

[Rollins Man]

Just now, Ice_Cap said:

Not really. A lot of the teams in this league are really old. If we're going to compare the first few decades of uniform history of, say, the Florida Panthers to the Chicago Blackhawks? Yeah, we're going to be paying the 20s and 30s a visit. It's not about reaching back. It's just research.

 

Yes and no. We're more brand-conscious now, but the team that "gets it right the first time" is very rare. Take any sport, and find the most iconic look. I guarantee you the team didn't start off with it.

Even if we account for the evolution of branding and marketing? The fact remains that teams changing up their looks and tinkering during their first 20-30 years of existence has remained relatively consistent. If it took the Blackhawks nearly thirty years to settle on their iconic look? Who's to say the Avs or Panthers will be any different?

Who knows? In 70 years? The Avs' 1996 mountain striping may be viewed in the same way we view the Blackhawks' barberpole. A kind of weird and dated element from the team's early seasons.

 

Nah, I think I've nailed it, personally.

of course you think that, just another foolish though in a long series of foolish thoughts. I'll be waiting till you show me a team take a completely different teams identity and make it theirs and call it a "perfect look".

[IceCap]

2 minutes ago, Rollins Man said:

of course you think that, just another foolish though in a long series of foolish thoughts.

You're a treat. I'd say "you do you" but I honestly think NHL uni talk would be better off if you didn't.

[Rollins Man]

2 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

You're a treat. I'd say "you do you" but I honestly think NHL uni talk would be better off if you didn't.

still waiting...

[wildwing64]

4 hours ago, Rollins Man said:

And the penguins comparison isn't that good either, the core elements were always there, same color scheme, same type of logo, a triangle and a penguin. Nothing wrong with keeping up with the times like they did so long as you don't just throw away your entire identity like colorado.

 

The core elements are also there in the Rockalanche thirds. Basically the same colour scheme, and the same type of logo, a triangle depicting a snowy mountain. That's not really them throwing away their identity. I could go as far as to say the Avs logo is essentially a 90's remake of the Rockies. Let's face it, if not for that pesky baseball team with the same name, they probably would have been named the Rockies today anyway.

 

For what it's worth I don't mind the logo the Avs have now, but it's not exactly the most timeless or interesting design. It could use an update. I don't know if the Rockalanche look is really the best direction for them, but something about it kinda just works for me. And this is coming from someone who doesn't care for the original Rockies logo.

[Rollins Man]

Just now, wildwing64 said:

 

The core elements are also there in the Rockalanche thirds. Basically the same colour scheme, and the same type of logo, a triangle depicting a snowy mountain. That's not really them throwing away their identity. I could go as far as to say the Avs logo is essentially a 90's remake of the Rockies. Let's face it, if not for that pesky baseball team with the same name, they probably would have been named the Rockies today anyway.

 

For what it's worth I don't mind the logo the Avs have now, but it's not exactly the most timeless or interesting design. It could use an update. I don't know if the Rockalanche look is really the best direction for them, but something about it kinda just works for me. And this is coming from someone who doesn't care for the original Rockies logo.

Completely different logos. The only things that is the same is the red, even the blue is different and the entire feel is changed. AND IT'S SOMEONE ELSE'S LOGO!

[IceCap]

Just now, Rollins Man said:

still waiting...

Are you now? Ok.

The Toronto Maple Leafs, upon becoming the Maple Leafs in 1927, adopted a logo reminiscent, but not exactly like that, of the Toronto Maple Leafs minor league baseball team.

The Milwaukee Brewers adopted the name and beer barrel man logo of an earlier Milwaukee Brewers minor league team.

The San Diego Padres, Charlotte Hornets, Vancouver Canucks, and Los Angeles Angels all adopted at least their names from minor league teams in their cities.

The Colorado Rockies adopted the name, but not the visual identity, of the old NHL team.

 

Those are just a few examples. Sometimes teams take just a name from a previous team from the area. Sometimes they take the name and logo but not the colours. Sometimes all three. Sometimes they base a new logo off of a logo an older team from the area had.

The Colorado Avalanche using a logo that's reminiscent, but not exactly like, of the Colorado NHL Rockies isn't that noteworthy in the history of professional sports. That kind of sharing happens all the time.

 

I don't expect this post to change your mind, because I get the sense you're dug in (ROCK, FLAG, AND EAGLE CHARLIE!) but there it is.

[Rollins Man]

3 minutes ago, wildwing64 said:

 

The core elements are also there in the Rockalanche thirds. Basically the same colour scheme, and the same type of logo, a triangle depicting a snowy mountain. That's not really them throwing away their identity. I could go as far as to say the Avs logo is essentially a 90's remake of the Rockies. Let's face it, if not for that pesky baseball team with the same name, they probably would have been named the Rockies today anyway.

 

For what it's worth I don't mind the logo the Avs have now, but it's not exactly the most timeless or interesting design. It could use an update. I don't know if the Rockalanche look is really the best direction for them, but something about it kinda just works for me. And this is coming from someone who doesn't care for the original Rockies logo.

it's one thing for a team to rebrand, like the caps and sabres did in the 90's. But they did their own thing. They didn't steal anything from anyone. If colorado at least still used some type of variation of their logo or this Rockies logo had never been used maybe I could live with it. But it's just a bad ripoff. 

[Rollins Man]

1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

Are you now? Ok.

The Toronto Maple Leafs, upon becoming the Maple Leafs in 1927, adopted a logo reminiscent, but not exactly like that, of the Toronto Maple Leafs minor league baseball team.

The Milwaukee Brewers adopted the name and beer barrel man logo of an earlier Milwaukee Brewers minor league team.

The San Diego Padres, Charlotte Hornets, Vancouver Canucks, and Los Angeles Angels all adopted at least their names from minor league teams in their cities.

The Colorado Rockies adopted the name, but not the visual identity, of the old NHL team.

 

Those are just a few examples. Sometimes teams take just a name from a previous team from the area. Sometimes they take the name and logo but not the colours. Sometimes all three. Sometimes they base a new logo off of a logo an older team from the area had.

The Colorado Avalanche using a logo that's reminiscent, but not exactly like, of the Colorado NHL Rockies isn't that noteworthy in the history of professional sports. That kind of sharing happens all the time.

 

I don't expect this post to change your mind, because I get the sense you're dug in (ROCK, FLAG, AND EAGLE CHARLIE!) but there it is.

Minor league teams? Who cares about minor league teams? And the rockies taking their name from another rockies team is terrible. It's about as lazy as you could get. Show me someone in the nhl who took another teams logo and passed it off as theirs and got it right. 

[Rollins Man]

4 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Are you now? Ok.

The Toronto Maple Leafs, upon becoming the Maple Leafs in 1927, adopted a logo reminiscent, but not exactly like that, of the Toronto Maple Leafs minor league baseball team.

The Milwaukee Brewers adopted the name and beer barrel man logo of an earlier Milwaukee Brewers minor league team.

The San Diego Padres, Charlotte Hornets, Vancouver Canucks, and Los Angeles Angels all adopted at least their names from minor league teams in their cities.

The Colorado Rockies adopted the name, but not the visual identity, of the old NHL team.

 

Those are just a few examples. Sometimes teams take just a name from a previous team from the area. Sometimes they take the name and logo but not the colours. Sometimes all three. Sometimes they base a new logo off of a logo an older team from the area had.

The Colorado Avalanche using a logo that's reminiscent, but not exactly like, of the Colorado NHL Rockies isn't that noteworthy in the history of professional sports. That kind of sharing happens all the time.

 

I don't expect this post to change your mind, because I get the sense you're dug in (ROCK, FLAG, AND EAGLE CHARLIE!) but there it is.

even the Winnipeg jets at least had the courtesy to brand themselves differently from the original jets while still paying homage to them with a heritage jersey. Why cant colorado just keep this thing as a third and find their own look? 

[wildwing64]

1 minute ago, Rollins Man said:

Completely different logos.

 

Well, yeah, of course they're different logos. But the core elements are there.

 

 

 

Going from this to that isn't really much different from the Pens going from this to that.