NHL changes 2019-20

[andrewharrington]

6 hours ago, Prince Harry said:

 

I would say anything that deviates from the Stadium Series style minimalism of recent years. The new trend seems to be random striping with no connection to the team’s uniform history with colours that don’t contrast well. 

 

As for stuff I liked from the Reebok era, Nashville’s third jersey from a few years ago with the sublimated checker pattern is a good example. Minnesota’s forest green third with the script. Buffalo’s 40th anniversary jersey. Even some of the winter classic fauxbacks were really interesting like the Leafs/Wings in 2014. 

 

Not everything was good under Reebok obviously but there were instances where I was quite impressed. Under Reebok, teams went from having too much piping to an over reliance on roundels and vintage white, so it wasn’t all good. The Winter Classic kits are about the only thing that still piques my interest under Adidas. 

 

I guess what I’m referring to with half baked is that we’ll see teams like New Jersey, Toronto, San Jose, and formerly Carolina update their set by toning down the hem stripes or just flat out removing them.

 

And then we’ll see Carolina deliver a jersey with no contrast and dark grey shoulders for some reason. And then Pens and Flyers trot out something dark and drab for the Stadium series and the Oilers go and follow their lead. The Flyers have done it a few times now where I have no idea what they’re trying to accomplish with their alternate and/or outdoor jersey. 

 

LA went back to a mediocre anniversary kit for their third and the Sharks had an actual novel idea for their alternate yet they made it way too dark and ignored hem stripes yet again. Tampa continues to go backwards with their new uniforms. Washington and Calgary still hold onto their Edge templates and merely compromise with throwbacks that we’ve already been seeing for years. 

 

 

I think Winter Classic succeeds because there’s a very clear design directive and expectation for what it’s supposed to look and feel like, as well as what it’s supposed to do for the league; in other words, it has its own established “brand.” Stadium Series has a tougher time because “the future” is much more theoretical and subjective than the past when it comes to design, so I think Stadium Series will always be a bit of an outlier to the point you’re trying to make.

 

Overall, though, I think what you’ve said makes sense. I can see how New Jersey and Toronto can be perceived the way you describe them, but I also don’t think their previous looks were doing anything particularly creative or unique. I think somewhere between where they were and where they are, there’s great potential for both teams to have timeless looks with a lot of distinctive personality.

 

Ironically, all the ones you mentioned in the second half of your post were essentially designed by the teams from the ground up after being presented initial rounds of design. Unfortunately, there’s just no way around that. Sometimes it’s cold feet, sometimes it’s one person or a group of people not being aligned with the brief given by the team’s marketing department, etc., but at the end of the day, the team is going to decide how they want to look. All you can do is try your best to convince them that your point of view is valuable for their identity and brand.

[Morgan33]

On 8/10/2019 at 5:15 PM, EddieJ1984 said:

 

This photo makes me sad because this uniform is such a staggering improvement over what's used today, busy or not.  Seeing the logo next to a hem-stripe and seeing the orange lining both sides of the black makes me loathe their current pajama-top look.  All they had to do was remove the front numbers & shoulder yokes and they would have had a modern classic on their hands.

 

Sharks if you're going to go with orange as a tertiary colour, instead of grey, embrace it!

[wildwing64]

^ I wasn't too crazy about that Sharks set when it was revealed, but now I actually miss it 

 

I like the Oilers third in a vacuum. If I'm a fan of the team it's the kind of thing I'd like to wear casually, but it almost feels like it was designed with that sort of appeal in mind. As a uniform it's just a bit too minimalist, though I'm curious to see if those thin orange stripes end up looking like a blob of colour that you can occasionally see, or if they'll actually 'pop' for once.

[Bayne]

7 hours ago, Morgo said:

This photo makes me sad because this uniform is such a staggering improvement over what's used today, busy or not.  Seeing the logo next to a hem-stripe and seeing the orange lining both sides of the black makes me loathe their current pajama-top look.  All they had to do was remove the front numbers & shoulder yokes and they would have had a modern classic on their hands.

 

Sharks if you're going to go with orange as a tertiary colour, instead of grey, embrace it!

 

Its a convoluted mess imo

[charger77]

12 hours ago, Morgo said:

This photo makes me sad because this uniform is such a staggering improvement over what's used today, busy or not.  Seeing the logo next to a hem-stripe and seeing the orange lining both sides of the black makes me loathe their current pajama-top look.  All they had to do was remove the front numbers & shoulder yokes and they would have had a modern classic on their hands.

 

Sharks if you're going to go with orange as a tertiary colour, instead of grey, embrace it!

 

The yolk was fine, just remove the front numbers. That was the 1st Edge jersey I got... Christmas '07 from my parents. 

[FiddySicks]

 

Since the Sharks switched to the current logo (Which I've never actually liked very much to begin with) and colors, they've never had a single uniform that I've even remotely liked. the orange was an AWFUL addition. 

 

Every single thing about these two looks absolutely murders anything they have in the current branding package.

 

 

And even though I absolutely adore that original Sharks look, I'm even willing to admit that objectively, those weren't that great either. 

 

[andrewharrington]

I really miss the lighter teal in the top photo. What a great color for that team.

[FiddySicks]

11 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

I really miss the lighter teal in the top photo. What a great color for that team.

 

I'm MUCH more of a fan of the other set I posted, and I think that darker teal is absolutely perfect for the Sharks. The ocean from about the Bay Area on up the California coast is dark, dingy, and completely infested with dangerous sharks. That particular shade of teal sort of reminds me of the waters around the Farallon Islands just west of the Bay Area. That particular area is called the Red Triangle, and something like half of all Great White Shark attacks have taken place there. 

 

 

[SFGiants58]

Outside of the name and the teal (any shade), I really don’t like anything the Sharks have designed.

[Chromatic]

The dark teal was better because there was much more contrast separating it from the grey, which was a big part of those uniforms.

[Still MIGHTY]

I love the Sharks second set, the Nike look. That's the team I grew to hate. That's the Sharks that I always picture in my head.

[FiddySicks]

21 minutes ago, Still MIGHTY said:

I love the Sharks second set, the Nike look. That's the team I grew to hate. That's the Sharks that I always picture in my head.

 

While it's not perfect, that's the best the Sharks have ever looked. Everything from the unique, modern striping, to the just slightly rounded font, to the dazzle fabric grey on the sleeves fits the Sharks like a glove.

 

That's the team I grew to love.

 

Everything since then has been disappointing garbage. just like the team itself.  

[SFGiants58]

I like the Sharks with more traditional striping, since they are a second six team in origin (merger then de-merger). The original is their best template, even though the logos (aside from the first and maybe second fin) are garbage.

 

I know that there’s symbolism with the triangle and the shark biting a stick is a striking image. However, I just think it’s cartoony in a bad way (unlike the Skating Penguin). Both Shark renderings look terrible, albeit for different reasons.

[Still MIGHTY]

1 minute ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

While it's not perfect, that's the best the Sharks have ever looked. Everything from the unique, modern striping, to the just slightly rounded font, to the dazzle fabric grey on the sleeves fits the Sharks like a glove.

 

Exactly.

 

The EDGE set that followed was just crowded. The stripes, the yoke, the orange, the front numbers, all of it was a no. The stripped-down, 3.87% faster sets that followed were/are dull and lifeless too. The originals are the next best option and a great color, but feel too static for a 90s expansion team in Silicon Valley named the Sharks.

 

The Nike set matches the vibe of what the Sharks should be.

[Morgan33]

7 hours ago, Bayne said:

Its a convoluted mess imo

Only because of the front numbers which would have eventually been removed anyways.  Without them the jersey is no more convoluted than what the Bruins use now.  Are you saying the pajama tops them use now are better?
 

3 hours ago, charger77 said:

The yolk was fine, just remove the front numbers. That was the 1st Edge jersey I got... Christmas '07 from my parents. 

 

The yoke was fine aesthetically, it just wasn't right for the Sharks.

[FiddySicks]

2 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

I like the Sharks with more traditional striping, since they are a second six team in origin (merger then de-merger). The original is their best template, even though the logos (aside from the first and maybe second fin) are garbage.

 

In the context of history I understand what you mean, but I've never actually bought this. It feels like a stretch and a half to really justify this as being genuine (Even though there is some indirect truth to it). It's akin to the Nationals wearing the EST 1905 patch, or the current Ottawa Senators trying to claim the original Senators 11 Stanley Cup wins. 

[mcj882000]

1 minute ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

In the context of history I understand what you mean, but I've never actually bought this. It feels like a stretch and a half to really justify this as being genuine (Even though there is some indirect truth to it). It's akin to the Nationals wearing the EST 1905 patch, or the current Ottawa Senators trying to claim the original Senators 11 Stanley Cup wins. 

I would actually argue that the Sharks have a better claim than those two teams have, considering their original ownership (who originally owned the Seals/Barons to begin with) came from the North Stars, and their roster was mostly made up of the bad half of the North Stars' as well, who also had to participate in the '91 expansion draft because of the demerger. Because the effects of it are that visible and obvious I think any claims to being the original Seals would have a bit more weight to them as a result, compared to the Nats & Sens* just claiming the histories of teams that moved/folded with no real connection beyond "used to play here". 

Of course, this would all mean more if the Seals actually had a history worth remembering, but if they did they probably wouldn't have moved/folded to begin with!


* - besides, if you really wanna get technical you could counter-argue that the Blues have more of a claim to the OG Senators' history than the modern Sens do, because their last season was played in St. Louis! Imagine if the '67 team named themselves the Eagles, what kind of a mess that would've been...

[Prince Harry]

17 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

I think Winter Classic succeeds because there’s a very clear design directive and expectation for what it’s supposed to look and feel like, as well as what it’s supposed to do for the league; in other words, it has its own established “brand.” Stadium Series has a tougher time because “the future” is much more theoretical and subjective than the past when it comes to design, so I think Stadium Series will always be a bit of an outlier to the point you’re trying to make.

 

Overall, though, I think what you’ve said makes sense. I can see how New Jersey and Toronto can be perceived the way you describe them, but I also don’t think their previous looks were doing anything particularly creative or unique. I think somewhere between where they were and where they are, there’s great potential for both teams to have timeless looks with a lot of distinctive personality.

 

Ironically, all the ones you mentioned in the second half of your post were essentially designed by the teams from the ground up after being presented initial rounds of design. Unfortunately, there’s just no way around that. Sometimes it’s cold feet, sometimes it’s one person or a group of people not being aligned with the brief given by the team’s marketing department, etc., but at the end of the day, the team is going to decide how they want to look. All you can do is try your best to convince them that your point of view is valuable for their identity and brand.

Yeah I should point out that I’m not accusing Adidas of pushing these designs on teams. When Adidas seemed to have more creative control with the WCoH, they produced some interesting uniforms, such as the first maple leaf inspired Team Canada kit in decades.

 

But within the timelines of Reebok and Adidas, I have noticed a trend by teams to go for minimalist designs during the late Reebok years and early Adidas era. My hypothesis, and I could be way off on this, is that teams believe they should sell jerseys that are more fashion-friendly and thus we’re in this trend of muted and simple alternate or sometimes primary jerseys.

 

So maybe my frustration isn’t with a lack of creativity but more so towards the recent aversion to maintaining traditional stripes on an alternate uniform or even primary uniform. I like hem stripes and I think most NHL fans do as well, and it’s disappointing that it seems teams are happy to put a single line at the hem just to signify where the jersey ends. Basically, I just want to see jerseys have good stripes. I don’t think it’s too much to expect from teams. 

[FiddySicks]

24 minutes ago, mcj882000 said:

I would actually argue that the Sharks have a better claim than those two teams have, considering their original ownership (who originally owned the Seals/Barons to begin with) came from the North Stars, and their roster was mostly made up of the bad half of the North Stars' as well, who also had to participate in the '91 expansion draft because of the demerger. Because the effects of it are that visible and obvious I think any claims to being the original Seals would have a bit more weight to them as a result, compared to the Nats & Sens* just claiming the histories of teams that moved/folded with no real connection beyond "used to play here". 

Of course, this would all mean more if the Seals actually had a history worth remembering, but if they did they probably wouldn't have moved/folded to begin with!


* - besides, if you really wanna get technical you could counter-argue that the Blues have more of a claim to the OG Senators' history than the modern Sens do, because their last season was played in St. Louis! Imagine if the '67 team named themselves the Eagles, what kind of a mess that would've been...

 

That's all SO complicated, though. I'm pretty well versed in sports lineage, and even I get lost on the whole Seals/Barons/North Stars/Sharks line. You can't reasonably expect a casual fan to make that sort of a connection. Also, I know of absolutely nobody in the Bay Area who's a Sharks fan who considers them anything other than brand new when they began as the Sharks. 

 

You're link between the St. Louis Eagles and the Blues is a good point, though. I was going to add them into that mix originally (Because what a HUGE mess that would've been), but I thought that would've been more complicated than most would assume. I didn't even know the original Sens played a season in St. Louis until I read that earlier today. I wanted to bring up examples that I had heard here before. 

[Point1]

Idk how you can complain that the light teal doesn't contrast with the grey when the dark teal completely blurs into black on TV.