NHL changes 2019-20

[TalktoChuck]

11 hours ago, Morgo said:

You didn't, somebody else said it was one of the most overrated identities in all of sports several pages back.  That's what I was referring to.

I stand by what I said. It’s not a terrible identity, but it gets way too much praise.

 

The Stars look their best right now. The only thing I’d change is to put a Texas shoulder patch in place of the roundel logo, and then give me a black alternate with g/b/w/b/g striping like their original Dallas set.

[VancouverFan69]

15 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

The lighter green and the current uniforms are the best the franchise has ever looked, in both Dallas and Minnesota.

 

The current Stars uniforms are the best look the franchise has had since moving to Dallas. The best North Stars uniforms are the blackfree kelly green and Athletic gold N☆ uniforms. The '78-81' set are one of my all-time favourites.

[SFGiants58]

17 minutes ago, VancouverFan69 said:

 

The current Stars uniforms are the best look the franchise has had since moving to Dallas. The best North Stars uniforms are the blackfree kelly green and Athletic gold N☆ uniforms. The '78-81' set are one of my all-time favourites.

I think that’s hideous too. White and yellow touch too much, the striping is super thick, and drop shadows look like ass.

 

The best North Stars design I’ve ever seen was this concept by @TheLAKnight:

 

Tincture makes the North Stars work.

[VancouverFan69]

16 hours ago, Bayne said:

I like the dark green. They look meaner, more edgy. I like it. The victory green is just too GREEN for the sake of being a GREEN team.

 

 

 

Dark green and black or any two dark colours on the same uniform is a big NO-NO. There needs to be contrast. It's like having black and navy or navy and darkened royal blue(Maple Leafs). There is no such thing as being "too green". With 31 teams(soon to be 32), there needs to be more than just blue, navy, black and red uniforms. Kelly/Victory green is one of the nicest colours in sports. It's why I've always loved the pre-'88 green North Stars and the 80's Whalers uniforms.

 

14 hours ago, DuckFly2gether said:

Exactly, its too bright, not intimidating, the north stars pulled it off, but that was a different era when bright/gaudy color schemes were popular like the kings in purple/gold, st louis is bright blue/gold, capitals in bright red/white/blue the golden seals. In the modern era, the darker shades work better and look less outdated. 

 

Bright and vibrant colours don't equal gaudy. Purple/gold is also worn by the NBA Lakers and NFL Vikings. The Blues' electric powder blue and gold was distinctive and set them apart from the Sabres' royal blue and gold. 

 

There is a thing called "variety". Not every team has to be stuck on dark colour bases. With games broadcast in HD, uniforms with a vibrant colour base and with a contrasting colour scheme are needed. Sports is supposed to be entertaining...even if the game itself is boring and uneventful. That's why there is a topic on the message boards in relation to "uniform matchups".

[Morgan33]

2 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Those uniforms were absolutely atrocious.  They’re way too busy and black drags down the Kelly/yellow combination.

I can understand not being a fan but atrocious?  Those uniforms were not even that busy.  They look pretty restrained and traditional to me.

 

3 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

The best North Stars design I’ve ever seen was this concept by @TheLAKnight:

 

Completely disagree.  That shade of green does not need to be darkened, it isn't 1995.

[DuckFly2gether]

12 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

It's not 2001 anymore. We can move on from every team needing "dark and intimidating" colour schemes and logos. 

Who say they need to have a dark uni? Certain teams can pull off bright colorful looks, i just said they look better in their darker colors than in that generic lawn green garbage they wear.

[DuckFly2gether]

24 minutes ago, VancouverFan69 said:

 

Dark green and black or any two dark colours on the same uniform is a big NO-NO. There needs to be contrast. It's like having black and navy or navy and darkened royal blue(Maple Leafs). There is no such thing as being "too green". With 31 teams(soon to be 32), there needs to be more than just blue, navy, black and red uniforms. Kelly/Victory green is one of the nicest colours in sports. It's why I've always loved the pre-'88 green North Stars and the 80's Whalers uniforms.

 

 

Bright and vibrant colours don't equal gaudy. Purple/gold is also worn by the NBA Lakers and NFL Vikings. The Blues' electric powder blue and gold was distinctive and set them apart from the Sabres' royal blue and gold. 

 

There is a thing called "variety". Not every team has to be stuck on dark colour bases. With games broadcast in HD, uniforms with a vibrant colour base and with a contrasting colour scheme are needed. Sports is supposed to be entertaining...even if the game itself is boring and uneventful. That's why there is a topic on the message boards in relation to "uniform matchups".

That's what the metallic gold and white is there for, to keep the black and green apart. The current green they use is terrible. And the striping is generic garbage. North stars green would have worked much better, if youre gonna use bright colors choose a good one, otherwise stick with the dark colors.

 

And please, dont put words in my mouth, im not saying every team has to wear dark colors and not have variety like it's 1999, im a huge fan of the preds look, great colors, they pull off the gold well. And i certainly love colorful unis, I am a mighty ducks fan after all. 

 

Dallas on the other hand, looks like a generic rec league team with that bangladesh green and nyr striping they use. If you're gonna use bright colors and go the traditional route, do it right, dallas did not.

[Ridleylash]

For Dallas specifically, I think an updated star-cut with the current logo and with a color scheme of victory green, gold, black and white would be ideal. 

 

For the North Stars, black can really only work if you use a darker shade of green (say, kelly green as opposed to the much brighter green they used) in combination with it. The bright green, athletic gold, white and black all end up fighting for attention too much otherwise.

 

[DuckFly2gether]

2 hours ago, TalktoChuck said:

I stand by what I said. It’s not a terrible identity, but it gets way too much praise.

 

The Stars look their best right now. The only thing I’d change is to put a Texas shoulder patch in place of the roundel logo, and then give me a black alternate with g/b/w/b/g striping like their original Dallas set.

The dallas rangers look is not even close to being the best in stars history. 1991 north stars and 1999 stars are way better, color wise, striping wise, more creative/distinct, ect. Today the stars have on of the most generic, O6 dress up looks, its traditional but not original nor historically significant, colorful but not in a good way like nashville or san jose. They're somewhere in the middle where they embody none of the positives of a traditional jersey or colorful jersey.

[DuckFly2gether]

10 hours ago, Bayne said:

 

Again, being a reductionist to prove a point. Not every team needs to do the same thing. That's what some of us are advocating for - yes bright can look great, but if done correctly and if it suits their identity, a dark colour scheme can work very well too. I personally like Dallas as a dark green and black. The bright green is just too much and completely eradicates that mean, ruthless aesthetic they had back in the 90's. The victory green is just too safe with the ultra-conservative Rangers and Hawks templates. I don't even like the colour green they went with - it's not that nice to look at compared to other greens.

This exactly what im saying, i like colorful uniforms, but not everyone should be wearing bright colorful uniforms. Whats the difference between advocating for everyone wearing dark colors and eveyone wearing bright colors? You need a mix of both, and dallas is one of those few teams that really pulled off the dark look of forrest green, black, metallic gold and white.

 

Teams like nashville, san jose, calgary, st louis look good in light colors, i would even like to see the kings bring back purple and anaheim go orange full time. Teams like boston, pitts, dallas, minnesota, columbus look fine in daker shades/black. But you have to choose the right bright colors for it to work. Dallas looks like they just jumped on the bandwagon of the 2010's and chose any bright color to get away from that black garbage they had in the edge era but did it wrong. 

 

You dont want the league to look like its 2001, but you also dont want it to look like its 1971. 

[SFGiants58]

2 hours ago, Morgo said:

I can understand not being a fan but atrocious?  Those uniforms were not even that busy.  They look pretty restrained and traditional to me.

 

 

Well, where to start? The thin black outlines throughout the lettering, the white yoke with two outlines, and multiple outlines combined with drop shadow. It feels unnecessarily busy. Add into that the black breezers with stars on the side and you have one of my least-favorite NHL uniforms.

 

2 hours ago, Morgo said:

 

Completely disagree.  That shade of green does not need to be darkened, it isn't 1995.

I’m sure it just uses the current Victory Green. Note that much darker and contrasts more with yellow-gold.

 

1 hour ago, DuckFly2gether said:

You need a mix of both, and dallas is one of those few teams that really pulled off the dark look of forrest green, black, metallic gold and white.
 

 

Expect they didn’t. It just looked hideous.

 

1 hour ago, DuckFly2gether said:

 

Teams like boston, pitts, dallas, minnesota, columbus look fine in daker shades/black. But you have to choose the right bright colors for it to work. Dallas looks like they just jumped on the bandwagon of the 2010's and chose any bright color to get away from that black garbage they had in the edge era but did it wrong. 

 

 

They did it right, though. The uniforms are beautiful and a top-ten NHL design. If anything, San José should qualify as a “dark” team with their current ugly teal shade.

 

1 hour ago, DuckFly2gether said:

The dallas rangers look is not even close to being the best in stars history. 1991 north stars and 1999 stars are way better, color wise, striping wise, more creative/distinct, ect.

 

1999 had a good template, but ugly colors. 1991 was a big tire fire.

Who else in the big four does light green, black, and silver?

 

1 hour ago, DuckFly2gether said:

Today the stars have on of the most generic, O6 dress up looks,

 

That term needs to die.

 

1 hour ago, DuckFly2gether said:

its traditional but not original nor historically significant, colorful but not in a good way like nashville or san jose. They're somewhere in the middle where they embody none of the positives of a traditional jersey or colorful jersey.

It’s colorful in a great way! They’ve got a traditional, yet colorful look and a proper crest. It’s an amazing look. 
 

Also, San José’s trash isn’t colorful. It hasn’t been since the ‘90s.

[Ridleylash]

The current Stars jersey isn't "playing O6 dressup", otherwise every '67 expansion team was "playing O6 dressup" when they came into the league. A traditional jersey design =/= "playing O6 dressup", that term only works if the team is clearly imitating an O6 club with their design. What O6 team used green, black and white? The Leafs used green and white when they were the St. Pats, but that was eons before Dallas came in and they've been blue and white for over a century since then.

 

If you want an actual case of "playing O6 dressup", you look at Tampa Bay, who basically turned themselves into the Tampa Bay Maple Wings, and not Dallas, who merely replaced a universally-loathed design with a traditional hockey design.

[IceCap]

12 hours ago, Bayne said:

I personally like Dallas as a dark green and black.

Yuck. Dark green and black are way too close in shade to work together. The whole thing looks muddied. The old gold helped, but it's still an inferior look compared to what they wear now, or had as the North Stars. 

 

Besides, if you track the North Stars/Stars identity? The dark green is an outlier. They've spent far more of their history in bright, vibrant green. 

 

12 hours ago, Bayne said:

Oh and put me down as someone who doesn't get why people are so in love with the North Stars identity. It's fine. The logo is utterly average (OK for it's time I guess) and the colour scheme is a bit jarring. 

The North Stars' identity is one of the best in sports history.

 

20 hours ago, Bayne said:

I like the dark green. They look meaner, more edgy. I like it. The victory green is just too GREEN for the sake of being a GREEN team.

I've been posting here a long time, but "I don't like the green for being so green" is a new one. This place never ceases to amaze me. 

 

I'm happy the Stars are embracing bright green again. They lost it in the 90s trend to darken colours, and the league was a less interesting place visually without that kelly green team. Now it's back. 

 

21 hours ago, DuckFly2gether said:

All they have now is just a recolored nyr jersey.

I can't help you if you're mistaking a kelly green, white, and black sweater for a blue, white, and red one. 

[DuckFly2gether]

38 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Well, where to start? The thin black outlines throughout the lettering, the white yoke with two outlines, and multiple outlines combined with drop shadow. It feels unnecessarily busy. Add into that the black breezers with stars on the side and you have one of my least-favorite NHL uniforms.

 

I’m sure it just uses the current Victory Green. Note that much darker and contrasts more with yellow-gold.

 

 

Expect they didn’t. It just looked hideous.

 

 

They did it right, though. The uniforms are beautiful and a top-ten NHL design. If anything, San José should qualify as a “dark” team with their current ugly teal shade.

 

 

1999 had a good template, but ugly colors. 1991 was a big tire fire.

Who else in the big four does light green, black, and silver?

 

 

That term needs to die.

 

It’s colorful in a great way! They’ve got a traditional, yet colorful look and a proper crest. It’s an amazing look. 
 

Also, San José’s trash isn’t colorful. It hasn’t been since the ‘90s.

No, it's terrible, in a bad way. 

 

It's boring, generic, uninspiring. It's traditional, if they were the new york rangers. Its one of their weakest looks, expect it's barely even their look. The green is terrible, north stars green actually popped and worked well with yellow gold and 90's stars green looked great with metallic gold and was more intimidating, the current green fails at both. The stars looked fine with the dark colors, way better than this lawn green rangers knock off monstrosity they wear now.

 

And yes, the north stars jersey was little busy, but nowhere near atrocious, give me a break. Since when does having two outlines on a yoke make something bad? Do the blues look bad with two colors on their yoke and two outlines on their numbers? And the stars on the side was a nice touch, instead of usual generic stripes they played up their identity. 

 

And you can try to deny it all you want, they are nothing more than O6 wannabe team, and maybe the term would die if less teams did what the stars and hurricanes did in 2013 and the lightning in 2011, actually be creative and make a good jersey instead of knocking off O6 teams and looking like garbage. 

[IceCap]

2 hours ago, DuckFly2gether said:

Who say they need to have a dark uni?

Um...

 

2 hours ago, DuckFly2gether said:

i just said they look better in their darker colors...

 

You did. 

[DuckFly2gether]

1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

Yuck. Dark green and black are way too close in shade to work together. The whole thing looks muddied. The old gold helped, but it's still an inferior look compared to what they wear now, or had as the North Stars. 

 

Besides, if you track the North Stars/Stars identity? The dark green is an outlier. They've spent far more of their history in bright, vibrant green. 

 

The North Stars' identity is one of the best in sports history.

 

I've been posting here a long time, but "I don't like the green for being so green" is a new one. This place never ceases to amaze me. 

 

I'm happy the Stars are embracing bright green again. They lost it in the 90s trend to darken colours, and the league was a less interesting place visually without that kelly green team. Now it's back. 

 

I can't help you if you're mistaking a kelly green, white, and black sweater for a blue, white, and red one. 

Did i say they were wearing the same color? Nice straw man. Oh ya i forgot, you're the guy who thinks anyone who feels a team looks better in darker palette wants the whole league to look like it did at the turn of the century. Now go take your assumptions somewhere else son.

[IceCap]

2 hours ago, DuckFly2gether said:

Today the stars have on of the most generic, O6 dress up looks

The last time an O6 team wore green was 1926. Try again. 

 

6 minutes ago, DuckFly2gether said:

Did i say they were wearing the same color? 

That's how teams are primarily identified outside of logos. The Montreal Canadiens even have a nickname based on their colour scheme. 

 

6 minutes ago, DuckFly2gether said:

Nice straw man. Oh ya i forgot, you're the guy who thinks anyone who feels a team looks better in darker palette wants the whole league to look like it did at the turn of the century. Now go take your assumptions somewhere else son.

Ahahahaha. Look dude. You're a treat. You ask me "who said the Stars need to wear dark colors?" in the same post where you go on to say the Stars should wear dark colours. And then you accuse me of attacking a strawman before you go on to create a strawman of my opinions. 

[DuckFly2gether]

3 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Um...

 

 

You did. 

I didnt say they need to have a dark uni, i simply said they look better in their old darker palette than what they wear now. They could have gone with a brighter color scheme had they pulled it off correctly like MNS did, but they didnt. Nice straw man again. 

[IceCap]

Just now, DuckFly2gether said:

I didnt say they need to have a dark uni, i simply said they look better in their old darker palette than what they wear now. They could have gone with a brighter color scheme had they pulled it off correctly like MNS did, but they didnt. Nice straw man again. 

You keep using the word "strawman" (or "straw man" in this case). Please don't use it unless you're going to use it correctly. Me disagreeing with your opinion, and pointing out flaws in your argument, isn't knocking down strawmen. 

[DuckFly2gether]

4 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

The last time an O6 team wore green was 1926. Try again. 

Once again not talking about the color bud, the lightning clearly ripped off detroits look in 2011, no one ever said they were in red. It seems you really dont have any argument because you know the jerseys are just O6 rip offs in a boring shade of green, and not even good one at that. So all you can do is deflect, but keep whining about that green to make yourself feel better.