Jump to content

NHL 2017-18


Bmac

Recommended Posts

7 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:

Flames18.png

damn straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

 

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!

 

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

 

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

the blackhawks look was completely their own! They didn't steal anything from some other them. If colorado wants to rebrand fine, but don't plagiarize. It's not that they're changing their identity, it's that they are replacing it with someone else's. Still don't get it do you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rollins Man said:

Still don't get it do you? 

I get it, but as I've proven with numerous examples the Avs using a logo inspired by the Rockies' logo is not that egregious or even unique in the history of sports branding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rollins Man said:

the blackhawks look was completely their own! They didn't steal anything from some other them. If colorado wants to rebrand fine, but don't plagiarize. It's not that they're changing their identity, it's that they are replacing it with someone else's. Still don't get it do you? 

 

I don't think you get it. I don't anybody in this thread, well mostly you, Morgo and Ice_Cap, gets it.

 

You guys are talking past each other because you guys aren't arguing about one specific thing.

IEI5Tg1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, monkeypower said:

 

I don't think you get it. I don't anybody in this thread, well mostly you, Morgo and Ice_Cap, gets it.

 

You guys are talking past each other because you guys aren't arguing about one specific thing.

My main point is that Rollins and Morgo are equating the 90s uniforms of the Panthers and Avs with the classic looks of the O6 and trying to claim that both sets are appropriate contexts. The 90s look, they claim, are appropriate for teams born in the 90s.

 

I find this flawed because the O6 arrived at their current looks after decades of experimenting. Whereas the 90s looks of these 90s-born teams are the initial offerings. That is to say that the Blackhawks today and the Avalanche in 1996 were in two different stages of identity development. 

The 'Hawks had more or less figured out their look after tweaks and overhauls while the Avalanche were just developing the first bits of their aesthetic identity. 

 

To suggst that the Avs, or any other 90s born team, developed things perfectly from the get-go is to show your ignorance when it comes to how identities develop. Not just in the NHL, but in sports.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Rollins Man said:

the blackhawks look was completely their own! They didn't steal anything from some other team. If colorado wants to rebrand fine, but don't plagiarize. It's not that they're changing their identity, it's that they are replacing it with someone else's. Still don't get it do you? 

 

The logo in question was based on that of a fellow member franchise of the same league, which played in the same city, and after moving elsewhere, is no longer using that imagery in any way, shape, or form, because the New Jersey Devils have no reason to make any reference to the Rocky Mountains in their identity. If there were any problems with the Avs "stealing" anything, the Devils would have acted on it already. And as I said earlier in the thread, the current Colorado franchise would probably be named the Rockies anyway if not for the MLB team claiming it first.

 

And for an example of another team with an identity that's not "completely their own", how about the Winnipeg Jets? Do you take issue with the relocated Thrashers using the name of Winnipeg's old NHL team? Not to mention that whoever ends up in Quebec will inevitably be named the Nordiques.

 

Also I fixed your typo.

 

8 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:

Flames18.png

 

4 hours ago, Morgo said:


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.

 

I like this look enough for the Flames, but if it were up to me they'd bring back that third jersey they recently got rid of and swap out the wordmark for their primary logo. Now that was a missed opportunity and I'll never understand why they didn't just switch to a set based around that.

 

Baertschi-Cammalleri-Third_jersey_131101.thumb.png.1548f03a4dac0237b8c2c4398e174d21.png

mTBXgML.png

PotD: 24/08/2017

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

My main point is that Rollins and Morgo are equating the 90s uniforms of the Panthers and Avs with the classic looks of the O6 and trying to claim that both sets are appropriate contexts. The 90s look, they claim, are appropriate for teams born in the 90s.

 

I find this flawed because the O6 arrived at their current looks after decades of experimenting. Whereas the 90s looks of these 90s-born teams are the initial offerings. That is to say that the Blackhawks today and the Avalanche in 1996 were in two different stages of identity development. 

The 'Hawks had more or less figured out their look after tweaks and overhauls while the Avalanche were just developing the first bits of their aesthetic identity.

 

I think I agree with most of what you are saying about the Avs, Panthers and Blackhawks being in different stages of their uniform lives but this part is subjective,

 

38 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

To suggst that the Avs, or any other 90s born team, developed things perfectly from the get-go is to show your ignorance when it comes to how identities develop. Not just in the NHL, but in sports.  

 

People have personal preferences and theirs is that the Avalanche and Panthers looked the best in their original jerseys (mine too). It doesn't necessarily mean it shows their "ignorance when it comes to how identities develop", it just means that they preferred an older look of a team.

 

But in saying that, just because you like a certain jersey a team has, it's not a defence against that team never changing their jerseys.

 

3 hours ago, Morgo said:

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. 

 

Like it's fine Morgo thinks this, but it doesn't really matter to the Avalanche what he thinks. They'd change their jerseys whether or not he likes them.

 

IEI5Tg1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, monkeypower said:

People have personal preferences and theirs is that the Avalanche and Panthers looked the best in their original jerseys (mine too). It doesn't necessarily mean it shows their "ignorance when it comes to how identities develop", it just means that they preferred an older look of a team.

 

But in saying that, just because you like a certain jersey a team has, it's not a defence against that team never changing their jerseys.

Exactly. I don't take issue with anyone preferring the Avs or Panthers' 90s look. 

The issue I have is when people claim those looks are untouchable.

 

You can say "I prefer their early look" and even argue in that look's defence without writing off any and all deviations from it as "trash" or "a travesty."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, wildwing64 said:

I like this look enough for the Flames, but if it were up to me they'd bring back that third jersey they recently got rid of and swap out the wordmark for their primary logo. Now that was a missed opportunity and I'll never understand why they didn't just switch to a set based around that.

 

Baertschi-Cammalleri-Third_jersey_131101.thumb.png.1548f03a4dac0237b8c2c4398e174d21.png

 

What's stupid about those alternates besides the wordmark and the terrible number font was that the socks for those jerseys match the sleeves on the home jersey, while the socks for the home jersey match the sleeves of those jerseys. Give or take some striping proportions.

 

Td3RUuq.jpg

 

I mean the Flames set is a mess, but making the socks match something on the jersey would improve the set a little in my mind.

IEI5Tg1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Rollins Man said:

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.

 

Minus the logos and the font and the shoulder numbers being on the shoulders and the colors of the stripes being different and the missing hemstripe and the stripe not being on the back of the jersey and the different blues and that one team uses gold and the different sweater cuts. If you ignore all of those obvious differences and focus on just the idea that they have a stripe in the same place, yeah, it's practically the same jersey. 

 

 

Quote

 

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 tie down was reintroduced on several modern uniforms over the last 15-20 years. It's status as a strictly throwback element is no longer true. The other modern elements used for the Panthers such as not continuing the chest stripe on the back, their number font, and their logo usage really doesn't paint a picture of a team trying to look older than they are. They have one thing that an old team uses, but the way they've tweaked it doesn't feel like a team ripping off an old look. 

 

Quote

The original sens used to have a chest stripe, the hawks, st. pats, red wings, tigers, ny americans, the wanderers, and the canadiens too.

 

So then you're saying it's not a uniform feature that belongs to the Canadiens? Cool. 

 

Quote

How many modern teams or teams since 1970 have used a chest stripe at all!?!

bfab5d0deaea64d24b2e219e22108f40.jpg

maple-leafs-red-wings-unveil-centennial-

 

It hasn't been used that widely so if I'm the Panthers then that's a uniform element that hasn't been tapped and done over and over like a hem stripe or a yoke or a stripe down the sleeve, which means it's something we can use to look different from the rest of the league. It's the opposite of lazy. They took the added step of coloring and striping it differently and then not continuing it on the back specifically so they'd wouldn't look like the only other team not using one. 

 

Quote

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. 

 

your argument is extremely poor because it requires ignoring many obvious differences in order to be true and you've demonstrated that over and over and we're just going in circles here. If you think their rebrand was lazy because of a chest stripe then you're not going to be happy when the next team comes out with a hem stripe because that's been done about million more times. 

PvO6ZWJ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I get it, but as I've proven with numerous examples the Avs using a logo inspired by the Rockies' logo is not that egregious or even unique in the history of sports branding.

but it's a step backwards none the less. It may not be the exact logo, but why can't they just come up with something new and original?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

 

Minus the logos and the font and the shoulder numbers being on the shoulders and the colors of the stripes being different and the missing hemstripe and the stripe not being on the back of the jersey and the different blues and that one team uses gold and the different sweater cuts. If you ignore all of those obvious differences and focus on just the idea that they have a stripe in the same place, yeah, it's practically the same jersey. 

 

 

 

The tie down was reintroduced on several modern uniforms over the last 15-20 years. It's status as a strictly throwback element is no longer true. The other modern elements used for the Panthers such as not continuing the chest stripe on the back, their number font, and their logo usage really doesn't paint a picture of a team trying to look older than they are. They have one thing that an old team uses, but the way they've tweaked it doesn't feel like a team ripping off an old look. 

 

So then you're saying it's not a uniform feature that belongs to the Canadiens? Cool. 

 

bfab5d0deaea64d24b2e219e22108f40.jpg

maple-leafs-red-wings-unveil-centennial-

 

It hasn't been used that widely so if I'm the Panthers then that's a uniform element that hasn't been tapped and done over and over like a hem stripe or a yoke or a stripe down the sleeve, which means it's something we can use to look different from the rest of the league. It's the opposite of lazy. They took the added step of coloring and striping it differently and then not continuing it on the back specifically so they'd wouldn't look like the only other team not using one. 

 

 

your argument is extremely poor because it requires ignoring many obvious differences in order to be true and you've demonstrated that over and over and we're just going in circles here. If you think their rebrand was lazy because of a chest stripe then you're not going to be happy when the next team comes out with a hem stripe because that's been done about million more times. 

oh come on the leafs are an old school team and that was a one off jersey for a winter "CLASSIC". Of course they were going to wear something old school. Another terrible example. 

 

The pens ill give you but the reason i don't have a problem with their stripe was because it was so 90's and untraditional with both the multiple patterns and gradient. So that doesn't work either. 

 

For the most part teams use these neck ties to have an old school feel. The rangers were the only teams really using one in the 90's early 2000's and they are an 06 team. Then the coyotes brought in their 2003 set which was a more simple old school style jersey so they used the neck ties. And since then almost every team trying to play 06 dress up uses it (tampa, dallas, carolina, florida). Just because it's being used now doesn't mean it isn't being used to give the uniform a more classic traditional feel, neck ties are not modern as they were mostly used way back when are are only popular now because teams are trying to dress up like it's the 50's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also of course the chest stripe belongs to montreal even though a lot of other teams wore it 80 years ago. For the past 60-70 the chest stripe has almost exclusively only been used by montreal. Only pittsburgh for 6 years used one in the 90's which was very different. And when any other teams introduces a jersey with a chest tripe it's always an OLD SCHOOL VINTAGE STYLED jersey for a winter classic or throwback game (detroit, ottawa, toronto, hawks). Keep trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

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.


There's a big difference between these two teams.  The Hawks went through 4 different, jumbled looks (conservatively) before striking gold.  The Avalanche did it right out of the gate.  Unique, eye-catching colours, creative striping, a primary that said everything it needed to and shoulder patches that cleverly represented the topography of their home. 
 

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

The 90s look, they claim, are appropriate for teams born in the 90s.


How is that a flawed statement?  If pre-90's teams have to adopt traditional styles that are of their era, why is the opposite logic applied for 90's teams?  This is the question you can't seem to answer.  If the Bruins suddenly went with diagonal stripes and 90's-esque bear for a logo (not advocating that, it's just an example), you would be reacting the same way I am about the Avalanche and I could use your Blackhawks argument to defend it.

The Islanders won their 4 cups in their first 10 years.  Look what happened when they tried to change their initial look.  Sometimes you get your uniforms right the first time and it coincides with great success.  Only difference between these two examples is the style of uniforms.  One of which you like and the other you can't stand.

 

50 minutes ago, monkeypower said:

Like it's fine Morgo thinks this, but it doesn't really matter to the Avalanche what he thinks. They'd change their jerseys whether or not he likes them

 

Of course not.  They'll continue to butcher everything good about their identity regardless of what I say.  It takes a special kind of talent to make their 2007 jerseys worse.
 

3 minutes ago, Rollins Man said:

but it's a step backwards none the less. It may not be the exact logo, but why can't they just come up with something new and original?


Or they could leave their logo as is.  Keep it for another 10 years and it will be considered classic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Morgo said:

Or they could leave their logo as is.  Keep it for another 10 years and it will be considered classic.

They could, but they won't so I'm just saying if they are going to change at least come up with your own look or a modern take on their current look instead of just taking a rockies inspired logo and slapping it on your jersey. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Rollins Man said:

but it's a step backwards none the less. It may not be the exact logo, but why can't they just come up with something new and original?

Well first I would say it's not a step backwards. 

I never really like any ideology that says a team MUST look to the past or MUST create something new. There are plenty of bad logos and uniforms in the past and plenty of bad logos and uniforms that were "new and original."

I rather a team keep all of their options open. If the answer is in the past? Use something from the past. 

With the Rockies-inspired logo? I like it. I think it just looks better than the A. That's my opinion. 

 

As for why the Avs went in that direction? A few reasons I suspect. 

Colorado state flag merch is hot right now, and this look lets the team get a cut of it. 

Secondly? The overall trends in spots banding are towards more iconic shapes. The Avs' logo was created in an era when detail was in vogue and no one had to worry about how the logo looked on an app icon or a web browser favicon. 

The trend towards retro-inspired aesthetics dovetailed nicely with the graphical needs of teams in the modern digital age. 

Simply put? The Avs' Rockies-esque logo, with its bold blocks of colour and simple shapes make it a better logo to use in small digital areas than the overly-detailed original A.  

 

21 minutes ago, Morgo said:

The Avalanche did it right out of the gate. 

That's a subjective opinion and not a fact.

It's my opinion that the Avs' two primary sets (pre and post Edge home and road sets) are just as much dated products of their time as the 'Hawks' pre-55 looks were. 

 

21 minutes ago, Morgo said:

How is that a flawed statement?  If pre-90's teams have to adopt traditional styles that are of their era, why is the opposite logic applied for 90's teams?  This is the question you can't seem to answer.

I've answered it before. 

And here it is again. No one is arguing the Bruins and Blackhawks should look like "1920s" teams. No one is suggesting the Maple Leafs return to looking like a "1910s" team. 

So why is there this obsession with keeping the 90s-born teams in a time warp?

 

You keep phrasing the discussion in terms of "90s teams" and "pre-90s teams."

Why the arbitrary cut-off? Why the broad generalisation of 80+ years of evolving hockey aesthetics? Things aren't that black and white. Every pre-90s team had an inaugural look that was shaped by the aesthetics of their founding decade. Some kept those aesthetics, some didn't, some went back to them.

The 90s isn't a special decade. The teams born in that decade are under no obligation to keep their decade-inspired inagural looks intact. 

No more so than the Leafs are required to continue to rep the late 1910s or the Bruins the 1920s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Well first I would say it's not a step backwards. 

I never really like any ideology that says a team MUST look to the past or MUST create something new. There are plenty of bad logos and uniforms in the past and plenty of bad logos and uniforms that were "new and original."

I rather a team keep all of their options open. If the answer is in the past? Use something from the past. 

With the Rockies-inspired logo? I like it. I think it just looks better than the A. That's my opinion. 

 

As for why the Avs went in that direction? A few reasons I suspect. 

Colorado state flag merch is hot right now, and this look lets the team get a cut of it. 

Secondly? The overall trends in spots banding are towards more iconic shapes. The Avs' logo was created in an era when detail was in vogue and no one had to worry about how the logo looked on an app icon or a web browser favicon. 

The trend towards retro-inspired aesthetics dovetailed nicely with the graphical needs of teams in the modern digital age. 

Simply put? The Avs' Rockies-esque logo, with its bold blocks of colour and simple shapes make it a better logo to use in small digital areas than the overly-detailed original A.  

 

That's a subjective opinion and not a fact.

It's my opinion that the Avs' two primary sets (pre and post Edge home and road sets) are just as much dated products of their time as the 'Hawks' pre-55 looks were. 

 

I've answered it before. 

And here it is again. No one is arguing the Bruins and Blackhawks should look like "1920s" teams. No one is suggesting the Maple Leafs return to looking like a "1910s" team. 

So why is there this obsession with keeping the 90s-born teams in a time warp?

 

You keep phrasing the discussion in terms of "90s teams" and "pre-90s teams."

Why the arbitrary cut-off? Why the broad generalisation of 80+ years of evolving hockey aesthetics? Things aren't that black and white. Every pre-90s team had an inaugural look that was shaped by the aesthetics of their founding decade. Some kept those aesthetics, some didn't, some went back to them.

The 90s isn't a special decade. The teams born in that decade are under no obligation to keep their decade-inspired inagural looks intact. 

No more so than the Leafs are required to continue to rep the late 1910s or the Bruins the 1920s.

i understand that the colorado inspired merchandise is popular with the fans but couldn't they find a way to incorporate it instead of just copying and pasting the flag on the shoulder and the rockies logo on the front? It's so lazy, they have so much potential to do something cool and they just went with the low hanging fruit.

 

Also, i dont think anyone wants the 90's teams to always dress like the 90's. I don't but i think that just like the 06 teams, they should always have something to their look that harkens back to when they first came in. Toronto and boston and all those teams all use similar logos to the ones they used a long time ago, just updated versions. Even Washington has an ok modern take on their original red/blue/white look.  

CPpatch3.jpg

Why can't they go with something like this that combines the colorado flag logo with their current branding? That way you get a little bit of both worlds, original 90's styled look updated with colorado flag integrated into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Exactly. I don't take issue with anyone preferring the Avs or Panthers' 90s look. 

The issue I have is when people claim those looks are untouchable.

 

You can say "I prefer their early look" and even argue in that look's defence without writing off any and all deviations from it as "trash" or "a travesty."

I don't believe those looks to be untouchable. Do i love them, yes, do i think they're perfect and timeless, no. 

 

I dont think there is a single nhl that hasn't had their look updated or altered at one point. I just think that when the time comes to update the look it should be done with respect to the teams history and their brand, especially one that been around for a few decades and that has seen some success. 

 

If colorado and florida or anyone for that matter do an update they shouldn't just completely get rid of all the elements of their past look, and they certainly shouldn't replace them with another teams inferior or dated look. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

That's a subjective opinion and not a fact.  It's my opinion that the Avs' two primary sets (pre and post Edge home and road sets) are just as much dated products of their time as the 'Hawks' pre-55 looks were.


Just like I thought the alternate looked dated the second it was unveiled.  You're right, it is subjective but no one will ever be able to convince me that the Avalanche' first set wasn't an instant modern classic.  Same goes for the Hurricanes, Panthers and Ducks.
 

Quote

 

I've answered it before. 

And here it is again. No one is arguing the Bruins and Blackhawks should look like "1920s" teams. No one is suggesting the Maple Leafs return to looking like a "1910s" team.  So why is there this obsession with keeping the 90s-born teams in a time warp?

 


The Blackhawks and Bruins 20's and 50's looks are all based off traditional hockey aesthetics.  They are interchangeable.
 

Quote

 

You keep phrasing the discussion in terms of "90s teams" and "pre-90s teams."

Why the arbitrary cut-off? Things aren't that black and white. Every pre-90s team had an inaugural look that was shaped by the aesthetics of their founding decade. Some kept those aesthetics, some didn't, some went back to them.

The 90s isn't a special decade. The teams born in that decade are under no obligation to keep their decade-inspired inagural looks intact. 

No more so than the Leafs are required to continue to rep the late 1910s or the Bruins the 1920s.

 


There's a cut off because from the early 1900's to 1990's we saw very few innovations.  The biggest thing to happen was the addition of colours like Purple, Green and Orange in 1967.  It can be argued that every team had a traditional set during the 1990/1991 season while during the latter part of the decade you saw things that were never done before.  Some were bad, some were good.  I just don't think the entire decade should be swept under the rug so every team can attempt a "classic" original six look.  I appreciate variety and creativity and there's nothing wrong with 90's teams embracing their own history instead of lazily copying the original six.  It's boring and it undermines the traditional aesthetic by watering it down.
 

Quote

 

The 90s isn't a special decade.

 

 

Its a special decade for the reasons I outlined above.  It saw the introduction of angular stripes, metallic fabrics, detailed logos and colour combinations that have never been seen before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.