Jump to content

Seattle NHL Brand Discussion


Toronto206

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 hours ago, Tygers09 said:

Like I said before, whatever name is made, someone or some people wont like that name, we're not in the front office of the team. So we have to deal with whatever name is chosen!

Yep.  Shove it down our freakin throats like every other team does.  At least they got some input first. 

spacer.png

Last updated 2/26

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2020 at 5:47 PM, TenaciousG said:


I’m pretty sick of teams trying to force fierce. I don’t get why Orcas (which are fierce and very relevant to the region), Seals or even Otters aren’t on the table.

 

 

I actually would love the Otters.  I get why not Seals, since there was the California team in the 70s.  Orcas, I'd love, but Vancouver has an orca in their logo, already.  And then of course every other person would then complain "Orcas doesn't sound as intimidating as Killer Whales!"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, thaipod said:

 

I actually would love the Otters.  I get why not Seals, since there was the California team in the 70s.  Orcas, I'd love, but Vancouver has an orca in their logo, already.  And then of course every other person would then complain "Orcas doesn't sound as intimidating as Killer Whales!"  

They can have an Orca for all I care. 

 

Also the "intimidation" argument has always been silly, especially when the team is also considering names like 'Sockeyes' and 'Evergreens'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's fine for a team whose fanbase is mostly going to be in Western Washington where all the evergreens are. I don't expect them to take hold out east where it looks like the moon.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Chromatic said:

Also the "intimidation" argument has always been silly, especially when the team is also considering names like 'Sockeyes' and 'Evergreens'.

And when we have names like "Maple Leafs" (an inanimate thing that gets eaten), "Penguins" (a fat bird that can't fly and is most known for cuteness), "Blues" (a musical genre that's not known for it's rough edges), "Senators" (a dude in a suit who just makes country rules) and "Ducks" (a bird that paddles around lakes and quacks). "Sockeyes" or "Evergreens" at least feel historical, like they'd fit in most any era of naming.

 

I'd give "Sockeyes" the edge because you probably don't want to name your team after an inanimate tree and invite mocking "pylon" comments, but "Evergreens" still at least feels like a classic name. God forbid they go with some uber-tryhard trash like "Renegades" or "Kraken".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, the admiral said:

what

I mean, when's the last time you heard a blues song that was rough-sounding and aggressive? 😛 That's what I meant; it's not exactly a genre known for being very loud and aggressive, tonally. It's usually quite smooth and isn't generally blaring sound.

 

Especially given the team's name is from a W.C Handy song, and last I checked, "Saint Louis Blues" was the exact opposite of what I'd call "rough" or "aggressive".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

I mean, when's the last time you heard a blues song that was rough-sounding and aggressive?

 

I listened to "Smokestack Lightnin'" literally two hours ago. 

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

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.