NHL 2017-18

[Sport]

16 hours ago, Rollins Man said:

it's not the exact same color scheme but the colors are the same in the end, red and blue.

 

This is nonsense. They're not the same "in the end". Royal blue and navy blue are different colors. It's the difference between the Rangers and Blue Jackets, Canadiens and Capitals, Cubs and Twins, Bills and Texans. etc. Words mean things.

 

16 hours ago, Rollins Man said:

And they are used in almost the exact same way,

 

I still fail to understand how gold-large white swath-gold and white-blue-white are "almost the exact same way". 

 

16 hours ago, Rollins Man said:

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.

 

Their templates are different. "Sand", one, is more than enough to distinguish them and, two, that is far from the only thing distinguishing them and you know that. 

 

17 hours ago, Morgo said:

Those Panthers uniforms look like uninspired trash whether you choose to ignore the fact they re-coloured Montreal's template or not. 

 

I'm not choosing to ignore that fact because it's not the case. The Canadiens don't own the concept of a stripe on the chest anymore than the Red Wings own the concept of contrasting color sleeves. They own their look as it is and the Panthers have done enough to differentiate themselves so it's not a problem. Also their widths and sizes are different and one team's doesn't wrap around the back, which I think was done to further distinguish themselves from Montreal. 

 

 

17 hours ago, Morgo said:

Nobody is saying people would have trouble telling them apart.  The issue is that the striping, aside from the lazy reverse treatment, is identical. 

 

I don't know what "lazy reverse treatment" means, but I do know what "identical" means and the Canadiens and Panthers don't have identical templates. They have one thing in common and they're completely different colors anyways. 

 

17 hours ago, Morgo said:

The colour balance is terrible, the military badges are laughable, and the new primary logo looks like it belongs on a soccer uniform.  The Panthers will never look this good again.

 

Aesthetically speaking these are all valid opinions. I take issue with the idea that the Panthers ripped off the Canadiens or were "lazy" for how they went about their rebrand. It's clear to me they did their homework. 

[wildwing64]

15 hours ago, Morgo said:

The new alternate looks like it belongs to an entirely different franchise.  An incompetent, visually illiterate one at that.

 

To be fair, between the black helmets and pants, the apparent unwillingness to move away from a generic click 'n fill Reebok template over the last ten years, and swapping out the shoulder patches for no apparent reason, the Avs have always been visually illiterate

 

No matter how I look at it, the new third is unmistakably an Avs jersey. What other franchise in the league is currently using a mountain as their logo? It is a Colorado Avalanche uniform. There simply is no mistaking them for another team. Of course, it also looks like the Rockies, the city's former NHL franchise. But where are the Rockies now? Going this direction is no different to the Senators adopting the old Sens' look.

 

Between this and the regular set, I feel like there's a lot more to like here. The simpler logo stands out well on the chest. The big white shoulder yoke is evocative of a snowy mountaintop. Losing the black and silver cluttering up the existing identity has also worked for the better. In general, it's much more pleasant to look at and has better potential for staying power. But it's still far from perfect.

 

I will agree about the use of navy here. For one thing, yeah, it is strange that they've ditched the brighter blue they've used up until now. The navy looks nice enough, and the white elements contrast well against it. But they've now got two similarly dark colours clashing with each other. Looking at it in game photos, it's almost like that big burgundy portion of the sleeves isn't even there. Also I hate the flag shoulder patch. Doesn't work for the Flames, or the Avs, or anyone.

[WSU151]

11 minutes ago, wildwing64 said:

The big white shoulder yoke is evocative of a snowy mountaintop. Losing the black and silver cluttering up the existing identity has also worked for the better. In general, it's much more pleasant to look at and has better potential for staying power. But it's still far from perfect.

 

Thinking that the square white yoke is evocative of a snowy mountain top is a placebo effect.  You want it to be true...just because.  But if that's what it is supposed to evoke, then it's pretty bad design. The Capitals have the same yoke on their throwbacks, yet no one's thinking "There are mountains in DC?"

 

I don't mind losing the Avs dropping the black, but silver really needs to come back.

[wildwing64]

3 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

Thinking that the yoke is evocative of a snowy mountain top is a placebo effect.  You want it to be true...just because.  But if that's what it is supposed to evoke, then it's pretty bad design. The Capitals have the same yoke on their throwbacks, yet no one's thinking "There are mountains in DC?

 

I don't "want" it, it's just something I noticed. Maybe that was deliberate on their part or I'm overthinking it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

With the Caps, well, they didn't theme their identity around mountains so there's no reason to make that visual connection to begin with.

[Rollins Man]

1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

 

This is nonsense. They're not the same "in the end". Royal blue and navy blue are different colors. It's the difference between the Rangers and Blue Jackets, Canadiens and Capitals, Cubs and Twins, Bills and Texans. etc. Words mean things.

 

 

I still fail to understand how gold-large white swath-gold and white-blue-white are "almost the exact same way". 

 

 

Their templates are different. "Sand", one, is more than enough to distinguish them and, two, that is far from the only thing distinguishing them and you know that. 

 

 

I'm not choosing to ignore that fact because it's not the case. The Canadiens don't own the concept of a stripe on the chest anymore than the Red Wings own the concept of contrasting color sleeves. They own their look as it is and the Panthers have done enough to differentiate themselves so it's not a problem. Also their widths and sizes are different and one team's doesn't wrap around the back, which I think was done to further distinguish themselves from Montreal. 

 

 

 

I don't know what "lazy reverse treatment" means, but I do know what "identical" means and the Canadiens and Panthers don't have identical templates. They have one thing in common and they're completely different colors anyways. 

 

Aesthetically speaking these are all valid opinions. I take issue with the idea that the Panthers ripped off the Canadiens or were "lazy" for how they went about their rebrand. It's clear to me they did their homework. 

sorry but no matter how you want to you want to look at it the jersey is the same, just like tampa and detroit use different colors and logos and the bolts have a shoulder patch it doesn't change the fact that they are using the same template. Florida just ended the stripe half way through, that's it.  And the logo doesn't fit with a hockey team, it's not up for debate it clearly looks more like a soccer logo. They have a perfectly good update leaping cat that they just stuck on the helmet. Why do you keep trying to defend trash? 

[monkeypower]

The Panthers and Canadiens jerseys are not the same, they are a similar idea, but not the same. The Canadiens don't own jerseys with a chest stripe like the Rangers don't own jerseys with diagonal script across the jersey.

 

The Lightning and Red Wings sure, but not the Panthers and Canadiens.

[Sport]

1 hour ago, Rollins Man said:

sorry but no matter how you want to you want to look at it the jersey is the same, just like tampa and detroit use different colors and logos and the bolts have a shoulder patch it doesn't change the fact that they are using the same template. Florida just ended the stripe half way through, that's it.  

 

It's not the same template. They don't even use the same jersey cut. 

 

1 hour ago, Rollins Man said:

And the logo doesn't fit with a hockey team, it's not up for debate it clearly looks more like a soccer logo. They have a perfectly good update leaping cat that they just stuck on the helmet.

 

I happen to like the logos and I think the leaping cat would look great on the front of a jersey, but that's not what we were talking about. 

 

1 hour ago, Rollins Man said:

Why do you keep trying to defend trash? 

 

A. I don't think it's trash. B. I'm defending it against the poorly conceived and poorly argued idea that they're "original six dressup" because they have one uniform element that is close to what Montreal uses. It's bogus. Sorry you don't like it. 

[Morgan33]

 

2 hours ago, wildwing64 said:

To be fair, between the black helmets and pants, the apparent unwillingness to move away from a generic click 'n fill Reebok template over the last ten years, and swapping out the shoulder patches for no apparent reason, the Avs have always been visually illiterate

Visually illiterate since 2007, there's no arguing that.  But the original mountain range jerseys were a thing of beauty with the added bonus of a winning history.
 

Quote

No matter how I look at it, the new third is unmistakably an Avs jersey. What other franchise in the league is currently using a mountain as their logo? It is a Colorado Avalanche uniform. There simply is no mistaking them for another team.

 

Quote

I will agree about the use of navy here. For one thing, yeah, it is strange that they've ditched the brighter blue they've used up until now. The navy looks nice enough, and the white elements contrast well against it. But they've now got two similarly dark colours clashing with each other. Looking at it in game photos, it's almost like that big burgundy portion of the sleeves isn't even there.

 

This is why it doesn't look like an avalanche jersey to me.  The colour they've used to represent themselves for the last 21 years is barely visible at a distance.  This fatal flaw just highlights why Navy is such a poor choice.  The simplistic striping pattern doesn't help the burgundy stand out either.
 

Quote

The big white shoulder yoke is evocative of a snowy mountaintop.

The original striping did a better job of evoking mountains.  That yoke is so awkwardly shaped.
 

Quote

Also I hate the flag shoulder patch. Doesn't work for the Flames, or the Avs, or anyone.

Thank you.  When Chris (Icethetics) leaked the design without the flag, I thought it could be a passable alternate.  The flag just put it in the same league as the Flames.

[Rollins Man]

2 hours ago, McCarthy said:

 

It's not the same template. They don't even use the same jersey cut. 

 

 

I happen to like the logos and I think the leaping cat would look great on the front of a jersey, but that's not what we were talking about. 

 

 

A. I don't think it's trash. B. I'm defending it against the poorly conceived and poorly argued idea that they're "original six dressup" because they have one uniform element that is close to what Montreal uses. It's bogus. Sorry you don't like it. 

who cares about the specific jersey cut! It's practically the same jersey minus the logos and font and and the shoulder numbers being a little higher. They are clearly trying to dress like an 06 or they wouldn't be using a chest tripe and tie down collar which was a very common jersey design traits from way back when. The original sens used to have a chest stripe, the hawks, st. pats, red wings, tigers, ny americans, the wanderers, and the canadiens too. How many modern teams or teams since 1970 have used a chest stripe at all!?! I don't even think there has been one. So i don't think my argument is poor, as it's quite obvious what they and many other teams are lazily trying to do. 

[Rollins Man]

2 hours ago, Morgo said:

The original striping did a better job of evoking mountains.  That yoke is so awkwardly shaped.
 

Agreed, and the white stripes on the top of the mountains were a nice touch that created a light layer of snow type effect on the mountains rather than some oddly shaped yoke. Plus, their logo actually has an avalanche instead of just a static mountain which represents everything but an avalanche. 

[Toronto206]

No one is going to change their minds; what's the point in arguing about this for pages and pages.

[Rollins Man]

38 minutes ago, Toronto206 said:

No one is going to change their minds; what's the point in arguing about this for pages and pages.

my ego is hungry. 

[AnPheitseog]

6 hours ago, Morgo said:

 

Visually illiterate since 2007, there's no arguing that.  But the original mountain range jerseys were a thing of beauty with the added bonus of a winning history.
 

 

 

This is why it doesn't look like an avalanche jersey to me.  The colour they've used to represent themselves for the last 21 years is barely visible at a distance.  This fatal flaw just highlights why Navy is such a poor choice.  The simplistic striping pattern doesn't help the burgundy stand out either.
 

The original striping did a better job of evoking mountains.  That yoke is so awkwardly shaped.
 

Thank you.  When Chris (Icethetics) leaked the design without the flag, I thought it could be a passable alternate.  The flag just put it in the same league as the Flames.

I know it is bad design, but i love the flag patch for the flames, and is one of my favourite parts of the jersey. 

 

That said, looks horrific on the avs. 

[ldconcepts]

I'm surprised that in all this debate the Flames' jerseys for next year haven't come up. It seems like everyone thinks they're wearing their throwbacks, but IMO, this would be best for them, with their roundel shoulder patch replacing the horse:

[ColeJ]

i really don't care for the black flames logo. black should be tertiary, at best. preferably nonexistent in their scheme.

[Morgan33]

3 hours ago, ldconcepts said:

I'm surprised that in all this debate the Flames' jerseys for next year haven't come up. It seems like everyone thinks they're wearing their throwbacks, but IMO, this would be best for them, with their roundel shoulder patch replacing the horse:

Agreed, this is the best they've ever looked.  The black adds some much needed contrast between two very bright colours and the chevron striping compliments the logo surprisingly well.  I'm a little biased due to the 2004 run coinciding with my last year of high school but these uniforms always looked perfect to my eyes.  It's funny how a team can go from a top 5 look to second worst in just one season.  Had the Edge debacle not occurred, it's very likely they'd still have this set either devoid of shoulder patches or with the roundel treatment you described.

[IceCap]

On 2017-04-06 at 7:11 PM, Ice_Cap said:

Well see, this is the problem with discussing anything with you. You make some grand statement, and then when someone provides evidence that contradicts whatever you've said you go "no thats different it doesnt count open your ears!" and otherwise inelegantly move the goalposts.

First you want me to show you a team that's adopted an identity from another. I do. Now you're saying it doesn't count because no one cares about minor league teams? And now it's NHL teams only?

 

On 2017-04-06 at 9:51 PM, Rollins Man said:

almost all those teams you mentioned were just starting up and didn't out right take someone els'es branding just a name.

See what I mean? You've gone from...

"find me a team that took another team's logo" to...

"find me a NHL team that took another team's logo no one cares about minor league" to...

"find me a NHL team that took another team's logo that wasn't just starting up."

You move the goalposts more than a partisan in a political debate!

 

22 hours ago, Rollins Man said:

And the logo doesn't fit with a hockey team, it's not up for debate it clearly looks more like a soccer logo.

Hahahahaha. No, opinions don't work like that. It's very much up for debate.

 

22 hours ago, Rollins Man said:

Why do you keep trying to defend trash? 

He obviously doesn't think it's trash. I don't either.

 

On 2017-04-06 at 9:06 PM, Morgo said:

 

Okay, I will address it then.  Pre-WWI to Post-WWII was a completely different era for uniforms and branding.  Teams like Bruins, Blackhawks, Leafs and Rangers tweaked their uniforms on a near-yearly basis.  This is not a fair comparison to the Avalanche set which remained more-or-less untouched for 11 years.  If it weren't for the Edge takeover, it would have been 21.  Differently named franchises aren't a fair comparison either.

Oh I think it's totally a fair comparison. I'll grant you that without the Edge change the Avs would have kept their inaugural look up to the present. So 21 years? Ok. Cool.

 

Now the Chicago Blackhawks adopted a black jersey with uneven red and white barberpole striping as their primary look in 1937, eleven years after they were founded. They wore that look until 1955. That's eighteen years wearing essentially the same look in an era you describe as one being of constant changes. And yet in 1955 they changed to a uniform that's essentially the classic look we all know today.    
So in 1955 the Chicago Blackhawks saw no problem abandoning their established look of 18 years to go with something different.

 

And I want to impress upon you how big a change the 1955 makeover was. The previous look had been worn, with a few tweaks, for the past 18 years. The team's primary colour had been black for even longer, going back to 1927, another ten years. In that time the 'Hawks had won two Cups, both in black uniforms. The second Cup was won during the previous 18 year look's first season! And yet with all of that history? The Blackhawks felt that the change to the primarily red in 1955 was the right one to make. They did it despite having won two Cups in black. They did it despite the look they were abandoning being "minted with a championship." They made what was a pretty big departure for them in 1955 and ended up with one of the most iconic hockey uniforms of all time. No one tried to stop them by claiming that the makeover would betray their two Cup championships at the time or their history as a "20s team."

 

So with all of that being said...I see no reason why the Avs changing their overall identity (A logo, maroon and slate to C/Mountain, navy and maroon) after 21 years is such a travesty! Same for the Panthers, actually. You and Rollinsman are acting like the inaugural looks of these teams are untouchable. They're really not. These teams are still very much in their infancy compared to the "legacy" teams, and they're very much still in the phase of identity experimentation. It's entirely possible that in 70 years people view the Avs' inaugural mountain striping the same way people view the 'Hawks black barberpoles.

[Toronto206]

Just gonna put this out there. The Avs are still ONLY 21 years old. So really, in comparison to teams who have tweaked looks and changed looks over time, it pales to those O6 teams, like the Blackhawks or Bruins or the Leafs.

[Morgan33]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

Now the Chicago Blackhawks adopted a black jersey with uneven red and white barberpole striping as their primary look in 1937, eleven years after they were founded. They wore that look until 1955. That's eighteen years wearing essentially the same look in an era you describe as one being of constant changes. And yet in 1955 they changed to a uniform that's essentially the classic look we all know today.  So in 1955 the Chicago Blackhawks saw no problem abandoning their established look of 18 years to go with something different.

Their first black and red jersey was adopted in 1934.  A season later they switched logos and replaced white with tan.  Two seasons later they dropped tan, went full barber-pole with red being the most dominant colour.  Granted, from 1937 to 1954 the striping remained more-or-less constant, but the logo changed 5 times.  The half assed road also hinted at the striping of the 1955 set.  Comparing this era of the Blackhawks to the days when the Avalanche were relevant is like comparing apples to oranges.  The Avalanche just darkened their maroon in 1999.  The logos and striping remained identical.
 

Quote

And I want to impress upon you how big a change the 1955 makeover was. The previous look had been worn, with a few tweaks, for the past 18 years. The team's primary colour had been black for even longer, going back to 1927, another ten years. In that time the 'Hawks had won two Cups, both in black uniforms. The second Cup was won during the previous 18 year look's first season! And yet with all of that history? The Blackhawks felt that the change to the primarily red in 1955 was the right one to make. They did it despite having won two Cups in black. They did it despite the look they were abandoning being "minted with a championship." They made what was a pretty big departure for them in 1955 and ended up with one of the most iconic hockey uniforms of all time. No one tried to stop them by claiming that the makeover would betray their two Cup championships at the time or their history as a "20s team."

I'm very aware of how big a change that was and yes it was necessary because the Hawks barberpole look, like the original Senators, was a jumbled mess.  But honestly, we're comparing the Avalanche thirds to one of the most beloved looks in all of hockey now?
 

Quote

So with all of that being said...I see no reason why the Avs changing their overall identity (A logo, maroon and slate to C/Mountain, navy and maroon) after 21 years is such a travesty! Same for the Panthers, actually.  You and Rollinsman are acting like the inaugural looks of these teams are untouchable. They're really not. These teams are still very much in their infancy compared to the "legacy" teams, and they're very much still in the phase of identity experimentation.

It's not that these looks were necessarily untouchable.  It's that they were and still are so far and above anything either team has released since.  There is not a single thing wrong with either of them. 
 

Quote

It's entirely possible that in 70 years people view the Avs' inaugural mountain striping the same way people view the 'Hawks black barberpoles.

It's also entirely possible 5 or so years down the road, management becomes nostalgic for the days when the team was relevant.  What history does the Rock-Alanche jersey have behind it?  Serving as an alternate for two basement dwelling teams?  Yeah, lets throw away everything good to happen to the franchise for that.  Total travesty.


 

[IceCap]

11 minutes ago, Morgo said:

Yeah, lets throw away everything good to happen to the franchise for that.  Total travesty.

The same could be said about the Blackhawks in 1955. They did it anyway and created a modern classic.

 

11 minutes ago, Morgo said:

But honestly, we're comparing the Avalanche thirds to one of the most beloved looks in all of hockey now?

Not really comparing so much as using the Blackhawks as an example of the limitations of your thinking. 

Every argument you're using in favour of the the Avalanche's 90s look could be applied to the pre-55 Blackhawks' barberpole. And had the Blackhawks had such an attitude we wouldn't have gotten one of hockey's greatest looks.

 

Is the Avalanche third/soon to be home on its level? Aesthetically? No, but I still think it's the cleanest, nicest look they've had. 

And who knows how long they'll keep it and what will happen in it?

The Blackhawks won a Cup in their barberpoles. That was the apex of the team's success at the time they changed in '55. A Cup in '60, however, and a run of three Cups later on, erased that and gave the '55-present look a winning pedigree.

 

Who knows what will happen in the long-haul if the Avs keep their Rockies-esque look?