NFL 2018 changes

[phutmasterflex]

I like white on white.

[Gothamite]

White over white works because white pants are neutral enough.  And because white pants are a traditional football look.

 

But only so long as the socks aren't themselves white.Insert other media

[Sport]

On 5/4/2018 at 10:43 AM, Gothamite said:

 

 

Um. I think you're disagreeing with @Jungle Jim there.

 

Logos really should flow from left to right.  

 

 

The Eagles' primary logo is awkward because it flows in the opposite direction as we read in English.  They're the only team in the NFL that currently does this. 

 

 

Which is only feasible because unlike virtually every other NFL team, they don't put their primary logo on the helmet.

 

 

For that reason, I give the Eagles something of a pass.  They have the history, and that also counts for something in my eyes.  

 

 

I blame the Steelers for the right facing helmet thing because of their stupid insistence on only putting the logo on the right side of their stupid looking helmets. 

 

 

 

23 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

This is often done not for aesthetics, but because the team prefers that their logo not face the armpit or crotch on apparel. That’s why the cardinal faces toward the center on the left side of a polo, but it faces out toward the hip when it’s placed on the front of the left leg of a pant.

 

 

If they're concerned about the logo sniffing the armpit then my suggestion would be to use the left facing version on everything so you don't get this weird thing where the logos are facing competing directions. 

[Sport]

I don't feel like there's a right or wrong way to face a logo. The Blackhawks looks fine looking to the left, but perhaps that's because he's still while most NFL logos seem to projecting some kind of movement so left to right the way we read makes more sense. 

 

Oddly enough I've always thought the Bengals logo looks weird for some reason when flipped to face the right. 

 

[jmoe12]

1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

I don't feel like there's a right or wrong way to face a logo. The Blackhawks looks fine looking to the left, but perhaps that's because he's still while most NFL logos seem to projecting some kind of movement so left to right the way we read makes more sense. 

 

Oddly enough I've always thought the Bengals logo looks weird for some reason when flipped to face the right. 

1

I've noticed this quite a few times with logos. It feels like there shouldn't be an issue just flipping a logo, but some only look good facing one way, especially the ones that aren't a straight profile view. I think the problem with that particular Bengals logo is the white space on the now left side. Since your eyes read left-right and are attracted to lighter spaces, they get stuck on that white fur and don't read the rest of it. 

[Gothamite]

Is that really a surprise, though?  Logos are designed for what they’re designed for. 

 

A logo that’s designed to face one way will incorporate features that reinforce a sense of motion or flow in that direction.  

 

Seems pretty clear that most of these helmet logos took into account that they would need to work in both orientations. Absent that consideration, I think you’re often going to find that a complicated logo looks better in one direction than the other. 

[WavePunter]

2 hours ago, McCarthy said:

 

 

I blame the Steelers for the right facing helmet thing because of their stupid insistence on only putting the logo on the right side of their stupid looking helmets. 

 

 

 

 

 

If they're concerned about the logo sniffing the armpit then my suggestion would be to use the left facing version on everything so you don't get this weird thing where the logos are facing competing directions. 

I've never understood that whole "sniffing the armpit" thing.. It's a logo embroidered on a shirt.. It's not a real animal.. It doesn't sniff.. And it's far enough from the armpit that it shouldn't even be a consideration.. 

[Sport]

21 hours ago, WavePunter said:

I've never understood that whole "sniffing the armpit" thing.. It's a logo embroidered on a shirt.. It's not a real animal.. It doesn't sniff.. And it's far enough from the armpit that it shouldn't even be a consideration.. 

 

Definitely overthinking things.

 

I think a logo sniffing an armpit is less visually upsetting than someone wearing two of the same logo facing different directions. 

 

[Harmening]

On May 7, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Around the Horn said:

Someone needs to recreate this today. That would be awesome to see.

 

 

…and tell one of the best quarterbacks in the league to be last to release the ball, indicating that he's grown old, and has a slow release.

[BBTV]

It's just like everything else - sometimes white over white works, some times it doesn't.

 

[Matito]

15 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

It's just like everything else - sometimes white over white works, some times it doesn't.

 

I'd say it works about 75% of the time. For teams like Chicago or New York (Jets), it looks great. For teams like Green Bay or Pittsburgh, it doesn't (or wouldn't) look right.

 

Also, that statement is an absolute, Obi Wan.

[leopard88]

21 hours ago, McCarthy said:

I don't feel like there's a right or wrong way to face a logo. The Blackhawks looks fine looking to the left, but perhaps that's because he's still while most NFL logos seem to projecting some kind of movement so left to right the way we read makes more sense. 

 

I think this explains it as much as the helmet graphic concept.  Even many of the logos that predate helmet logos or were never used as helmet logos tend to face to the right (though the Eagles logo was later reversed during the Randall Cunningham era).

 

 

19 hours ago, WavePunter said:

I've never understood that whole "sniffing the armpit" thing.. It's a logo embroidered on a shirt.. It's not a real animal.. It doesn't sniff.. And it's far enough from the armpit that it shouldn't even be a consideration.. 

 

I can safely say that I have never looked at a right-facing chest logo and thought "My goodness, it looks like the logo is sniffing that guy's armpit!"

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, Matito said:

Also, that statement is an absolute, Obi Wan.

 

[shaydre1019]

On 5/8/2018 at 10:15 AM, McCarthy said:

 

 

I blame the Steelers for the right facing helmet thing because of their stupid insistence on only putting the logo on the right side of their stupid looking helmets. 

 

 

 

I would say it's definitely an english language thing. 

 

IIRC somebody shared some nfl merchandise designed in Hebrew (?) and the logos were all facing the other direction. 

[FightingGoldenDevil]

1 hour ago, shaydre1019 said:

 

I would say it's definitely an english language thing. 

 

IIRC somebody shared some nfl merchandise designed in Hebrew (?) and the logos were all facing the other direction. 

Hebrew is read right to left

[Sport]

The Bengals put a time lapse video of the removal of their old field on their instagram if you're into that sort of thing. 

[BBTV]

On 5/9/2018 at 8:23 AM, Matito said:

Also, that statement is an absolute, Obi Wan.

 

Ha - I hadn't even thought of that.  Add that to the rest of what is "from my point of view" horrible writing.

[BrandMooreArt]

On 5/8/2018 at 1:33 PM, Gothamite said:

Is that really a surprise, though?  Logos are designed for what they’re designed for. 

 

A logo that’s designed to face one way will incorporate features that reinforce a sense of motion or flow in that direction.  

 

Seems pretty clear that most of these helmet logos took into account that they would need to work in both orientations. Absent that consideration, I think you’re often going to find that a complicated logo looks better in one direction than the other. 

 

they should still work if reflected. even when you flip the “motion” or fur or whatever. often though, McCarthy is right, when you reflect the art some mistakes show up, especially when you have to consider perspective, like the Bengals logo. digital artist will flip their canvas a lot while working to reveal all those mistakes in perspective or lighting. the same process should be considered when doing logos like that, most especially if it were intended to be reflected in the firt place, like when using on a helmet

 

edit - to see that process in action, this artist does it a couple of times at the end of this video: 

 

 

 

[monkeypower]

So with a couple of the younger Jets players continuing to push for new uniforms and the Jets having their shiny, new Darnold, I could really see the Jets thinking about changing their jerseys and logos in the coming years in some sort of "new era" movement thing. It's also got a decent amount of fan support and traction on Twitter due to Darron Lee and Jamal Adams, so maybe it's something that the Jets are going to take a look at. Lee has brought up the Taste of the Jets fundraiser on the 17th in relation to the #JetsNewUnis, so maybe something is going to happen there.

 

I wouldn't hate a Jets change and would like to see some sort of jet as the logo, but I also don't hate the current jerseys and logo enough to the point where I feel they need a change, so I guess I'm fine either way.

[daveindc]

6 hours ago, monkeypower said:

So with a couple of the younger Jets players continuing to push for new uniforms and the Jets having their shiny, new Darnold, I could really see the Jets thinking about changing their jerseys and logos in the coming years in some sort of "new era" movement thing. It's also got a decent amount of fan support and traction on Twitter due to Darron Lee and Jamal Adams, so maybe it's something that the Jets are going to take a look at. Lee has brought up the Taste of the Jets fundraiser on the 17th in relation to the #JetsNewUnis, so maybe something is going to happen there.

 

I wouldn't hate a Jets change and would like to see some sort of jet as the logo, but I also don't hate the current jerseys and logo enough to the point where I feel they need a change, so I guess I'm fine either way.

 

 

https://jetswire.usatoday.com/2018/05/09/whats-the-deal-with-jetsnewunis/