NHL changes 2019-20

[DuckFly2gether]

1 minute ago, ColeJ said:

you aren't trying to change minds. you're just trying to belittle anyone that disagrees with you. which is just about everyone.

 

take the L and move on, bud.

No, im showing that their arguments are poor, flawed, dont hold water, and visually make no sense at all. What do you want me to say to someone whose argument is the 1991 NS, or the devils and sharks look like the rangers, when they clearly dont? Like i said, just refute my point rationally, i think the stars jersey design is lazy and too close to the rangers and want better. others, even some who ive argued with have admitted this, so what the problem?

[Olmec]

Damn, saw this thread was on  and it's just y'all bickering about uniforms that debuted 3+ years ago

[IceCap]

3 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Yeah, you can laugh, but I think they're better than the Avalanche's regular jerseys.

 

 

The only real problem I have (other than still playing up the nickname initial) is the seam at the bottom of the mountains.  Eliminate that, make the two maroon sections out of the same piece of fabric, and they're good.

 

 

I can agree that this A logo, taken on its own, is better than the Avs' primary logo. It just doesn't look good blown up like this. It's the hockey equivalent to those TATC baseball jerseys. 

 

I also find the NewsBot's headline funny. 

"The future of hockey." 

It reminds me of when the Sabres unveiled the Buffaslug sweaters. You have one Sabres fan who was defending them. And they took aim at my Leafs fandom by going "at least the Sabres will look like they're playing in this century."

And where are the Sabres now? Wearing uniforms that are pretty traditional compared to the Buffaslug experiment. 

 

You always get crazy designs claiming to be "the future" but the traditional aesthetics of the sport in question always re-assert themselves. 

[Fresno St. Alum]

shouldn't we blame the designer (reebok, adidas) for the similar looks. Cardinals, Falcons looked similar, we'll see what nike does to change it w the Falcons. 

Ducks and Flames have those ugly side panels, avs used to have it. I blame reebok  

[Sport]

2 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

 

You always get crazy designs claiming to be "the future" but the traditional aesthetics of the sport in question always re-assert themselves. 

 

at the risk of starting it all over again, I think this is another reason why "O6 Dressup" so irritates me on a fundamental level. There's a reason those traditional hockey design conventions are still being used. 

[Ridleylash]

9 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

You always get crazy designs claiming to be "the future" but the traditional aesthetics of the sport in question always re-assert themselves. 

And besides that, this is the Stadium Series. It's always been like this. The Pens/Flyers one was Color Rush and giant helmet logos, you had Detroit with the large diagonal stripe, the multiple uses of chromed logos, Minnesota's giant NOB, the Sharks and Kings with their tri-color jerseys...

[colinturner95]

11 minutes ago, DastardlyRidleylash said:

And besides that, this is the Stadium Series. It's always been like this. The Pens/Flyers one was Color Rush and giant helmet logos, you had Detroit with the large diagonal stripe, the multiple uses of chromed logos, Minnesota's giant NOB, the Sharks and Kings with their tri-color jerseys...

And for one offs, I personally like it. When it begins to creep into every-game uniforms, then I riot. 

[IceCap]

10 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

at the risk of starting it all over again, I think this is another reason why "O6 Dressup" so irritates me on a fundamental level. There's a reason those traditional hockey design conventions are still being used. 

Pretty much. It's not "O6 dressup" it's just how a traditional hockey uniform is designed. Teams that want something "back to basics" or "classic" will go with tried and true striping patterns. 
That doesn't mean they're intentionally aping an Original Six look though. As you said, only two teams have actually done that. And one of them rectified it. 

 

I kind of feel bad for helping spread "Original Six Dress-up," but it made sense at the time, with Tampa and Carolina both ripping off the Maple Leafs and Red Wings within a year of each other. Then people who had a bone to pick with anything remotely classic looking started using it and it became useless. 

 

To your point about why this is only a hockey thing...I think there are two reasons. The first is that a hockey sweater gives you more of a canvas. So you can make crazy stuff work in ways you really can't in other sports. 
Secondly? Most newer teams in the league (not all, but most) come from the Sunbelt. Non-traditional markets.

So you take the (flawed) "they're a 90s team they should look the part" argument and pair it with the (flawed) "they're in a non-traditional market, they should buck the trend" argument and you get this weird insistence that some teams are absolutely betraying their identity if they dare to go with something more classic. 

 

You saw that with the Stars, actually. Some people, when they unveiled their current identity, went "they play in Dallas and are a 90s team they should embrace the star striping look!"

Until it was pointed out that the team was actually founded in the 60s and had an extensive history of traditional sweater designs. 

[AnPheitseog]

10 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Pretty much. It's not "O6 dressup" it's just how a traditional hockey uniform is designed. Teams that want something "back to basics" or "classic" will go with tried and true striping patterns. 
That doesn't mean they're intentionally aping an Original Six look though. As you said, only two teams have actually done that. And one of them rectified it. 

 

I kind of feel bad for helping spread "Original Six Dress-up," but it made sense at the time, with Tampa and Carolina both ripping off the Maple Leafs and Red Wings within a year of each other. Then people who had a bone to pick with anything remotely classic looking started using it and it became useless. 

 

To your point about why this is only a hockey thing...I think there are two reasons. The first is that a hockey sweater gives you more of a canvas. So you can make crazy stuff work in ways you really can't in other sports. 
Secondly? Most newer teams in the league (not all, but most) come from the Sunbelt. Non-traditional markets.

So you take the (flawed) "they're a 90s team they should look the part" argument and pair it with the (flawed) "they're in a non-traditional market, they should buck the trend" argument and you get this weird insistence that some teams are absolutely betraying their identity if they dare to go with something more classic. 

 

You saw that with the Stars, actually. Some people, when they unveiled their current identity, went "they play in Dallas and are a 90s team they should embrace the star striping look!"

Until it was pointed out that the team was actually founded in the 60s and had an extensive history of traditional sweater designs. 

I think the Stars are in that magical point where they could go either way. Be a 90s team, as when they started in dallas, or go traditional with being a 67 team.

 

I liked the star jersey, and wouldn't mind them going back to it or using it in some manner.

I also like the current jersey, though I wouldnt mind them adding gold or gold/yellow into their look. I nitpick the green(would love to see it look more like the new jets green), but they look like the stars wearing either. 

[infrared41]

2 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

2 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Are you capable of making a reply without being a jerk about it?

 

2 hours ago, DuckFly2gether said:

How bout you or anyone else including morgo actually make a good point. Do you actually think im not going to call you out on having such a stupid opinion? Otherwise dont comment and i wont have to call you out on your poor logic. Get it?

 

 

 

So then, this your way of saying no, you can't not be a jerk about it?

 

A little attitude goes a long way around here. A lot just goes away. That duck is now flying elsewhere. 

[dont care]

7 hours ago, SportsLogos.Net News said:

Colorado Avalanche Stadium Series Uniform “a Glimpse Into the Future of Hockey”

January 16, 2020 - 17:01 PM

The Colorado Avalanche today unveiled the uniforms they’ll be wearing for the 2020 Stadium Series game and, well, they’re different. Calling it a “glimpse into the future of hockey”, Colorado’s new Adidas Adizero jersey features a large white “A” across […]

Read More...

If those are the future, I’ll stay in the present.

[pepis21]

Rangers red stripes are thicker than Stars black stripes so both jerseys are different. Case closed, we can go home.

[VikWings]

4 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Yeah, you can laugh, but I think they're better than the Avalanche's regular jerseys.

 

 

The only real problem I have (other than still playing up the nickname initial) is the seam at the bottom of the mountains.  Eliminate that, make the two maroon sections out of the same piece of fabric, and they're good.

 

 

 

These are so bad. Looks like that have a dinner napkin tucked into their jerseys.

 

Avs version of the turd burger.

[ColeJ]

my girlfriend wants one..................

 

i don't even know what to do or say about that.

[Morgan33]

I like the idea of the Avalanche having a half slate-blue/half burgundy jersey.  It's kind of reminiscent of the Pepsi logo which appropriate since they play in the Pepsi Center but that logo is just terrible.  It looks like a triangle balancing on mountain range, lazily forming an 'A.'  Maybe something a little more restrained would serve the concept better.

The current primary, like in this poor photoshop, or a re-coloured version of the alternate logo could be viable options.  Either way, the chest stripe needs simplifying.

[IceCap]

9 minutes ago, ColeJ said:

my girlfriend wants one..................

 

i don't even know what to do or say about that.

It's ok. We're here for support

[Gothamite]

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I can agree that this A logo, taken on its own, is better than the Avs' primary logo. It just doesn't look good blown up like this. It's the hockey equivalent to those TATC baseball jerseys. 

 

I also find the NewsBot's headline funny. 

"The future of hockey." 

It reminds me of when the Sabres unveiled the Buffaslug sweaters. You have one Sabres fan who was defending them. And they took aim at my Leafs fandom by going "at least the Sabres will look like they're playing in this century."

And where are the Sabres now? Wearing uniforms that are pretty traditional compared to the Buffaslug experiment. 

 

You always get crazy designs claiming to be "the future" but the traditional aesthetics of the sport in question always re-assert themselves. 

It reminds me of that Turn Ahead the Clock event, where baseball teams wore their “future” uniforms.  The Yankees took the field in their standard pinstripes, and when George Steinbrenner was asked why the Yanks didn’t participate in the promotion he replied: “We did.” 

[The_Admiral]

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

So you take the (flawed) "they're a 90s team they should look the part" argument

 

Flawed as it may be I still think the Avalanche should retain their dopey overdesigned-while-also-underdesigned uniforms

[IceCap]

Hey, they're better than the Edge uniforms they wore far longer than they had to. So yay for small miracles.

[Ridleylash]

The Avs would be fine if they just got rid of black on the jersey. It's never been used as anything but a very minor stripe color and only exists because of the puck in the logo. They really only need burgundy, white/silver and blue. I wouldn't mind the Rockies fauxback logo coming back as their full-time primary, but I suppose winning multiple Cups in the 90's logo has given it lots of staying power.

 

The mountain-cut is their thing, though, and it was criminal when the Reebok jerseys got rid of that. Glad that mistake was rectified, at least.