Buc

Rumor: Buccaneers to Get New Uniforms??

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Gothamite said:

It’s true to the source material. 

 

spacer.png


Yes, and the oversized plume in the source material looks every bit as foppishly asinine as the feather in the original "Bucco Bruce" logo. 

 

As I said in my original post:

"After all, one way to prevent your brand icon from being disparagingly compared to Errol Flynn is to refrain from embracing the costume design tropes of 1930s and '40s Hollywood swashbucklers when creating your logo. In other words, when it comes to piratical headwear, think less Captain Blood and more Pirates of the Caribbean."

In other words, when you're creating the branding package for a professional gridiron football team, perhaps taking your sartorial cues from a 1930s cinematic swashbuckler isn't the route to go. Believe me, I'm not arguing that Johnny Depp actually possesses more machismo than Errol Flynn. Rather, I'm simply pointing out that the headwear Depp sports in his corsair flicks doesn't look as flamboyant as the chapeaux that Flynn and his co-stars most often wore in their pirate films.                  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, -Akronite- said:

I think a lot of these updates to Bruce are really well done. Unfortunately, Bruce sucks as a logo IMO. Odd dimensions and a bad concept IMO.


Roughly square are odd dimensions, and a depiction of the actual team name is a bad concept? 

 

30 minutes ago, Brian in Boston said:


Yes, and the oversized plume in the source material looks every bit as foppishly asinine as the feather in the original "Bucco Bruce" logo. 

 

As I said in my original post:

"After all, one way to prevent your brand icon from being disparagingly compared to Errol Flynn is to refrain from embracing the costume design tropes of 1930s and '40s Hollywood swashbucklers when creating your logo. In other words, when it comes to piratical headwear, think less Captain Blood and more Pirates of the Caribbean."

In other words, when you're creating the branding package for a professional gridiron football team, perhaps taking your sartorial cues from a 1930s cinematic swashbuckler isn't the route to go. Believe me, I'm not arguing that Johnny Depp actually possesses more machismo than Errol Flynn. Rather, I'm simply pointing out that the headwear Depp sports in his corsair flicks doesn't look as flamboyant as the chapeaux that Flynn and his co-stars most often wore in their pirate films.                  

 

I think the distinction, though, is that a buccaneer was typically a government-sanctioned privateer and thus should be depicted with a little more grandeur and polish than a regular ol’ pirate, which I don’t necessarily disagree with.  It’s a tough subject to work with because nearly everyone’s understanding of pirate culture is built on tropes and stereotypes.

 

I generally prefer the flag for them, though it does present its own challenges trying to keep the imagery distinct from the Raiders’ brand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2019 at 8:39 PM, McCarthy said:

yeah the plume feather is weird and always was, especially the way it made their helmets look from the back,

quarterback-trent-dilfer-of-the-tampa-ba

 

 

but when you're writing a love letter to Bucco Bruce you gotta use it to capture the same essence. 

 

 

 

Here's how I'd helmet this thing, by the way

spacer.png


 

I didn’t think it could’ve been done, but you managed to make Bucco Bruce intimidating. Well done sir.

 

(Am I crazy to think that if the NFL were to ever drop the one-helmet rule that the Bucs could pull both of these off with something like the 1997-2013 set?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andrewharrington said:


Roughly square are odd dimensions, and a depiction of the actual team name is a bad concept? 

 

I'll clarify, since my point didn't get across apparently.

 

The shape of the logo is odd, as the feather overlaps and it has a strange weight balance compared to most sports logos.

 

The concept, a realistic depiction of a suave man's head with a big feather on top, sucks in my opinion, regardless of whether we want to applaud them for going literal. And this is regardless of whether they want to make him look happy, cool, intimidating... It's all lame. Most human mascots/logos look bad, especially compared to monograms, animals, etc. For instance, the Raiders have a classic logo but the head is straight up ugly (kinda fitting for the Raiders but I digress). Plenty will disagree but to me there isn't a single Bruce concept that comes anywhere close to the original or current flag logos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, McCarthy said:

I prefer the white feather, but that's just me, The Creator. I tried some red and orange accents and decided I didn't like them. 

 

One thing I did was I put a couple more strokes into the feather to further define it. Here's a few versions. 

 

spacer.png

 

 

 

The one in the middle is fantastic. The one of the left is too fussy with the white, and the one on the right has too much white. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the middle one but with white highlights like the left one has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

In other words, when you're creating the branding package for a professional gridiron football team, perhaps taking your sartorial cues from a 1930s cinematic swashbuckler isn't the route to go.         

 

Yeah, but that’s how we get all the puerile “kewl” designs so eager to show us how tough and fierce they are.   Yawn-(not to mention cringe-)inducing.

 

There’s room for all kinds of pirate designs throughout sports.  Or at least there should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His face can't have three colors, he looks splotchy-faced. 

 

I thought maybe pewter could work as the outline color so that there's a little more of it, and that on a white helmet it would be a nice accent to call back to the old pewter helmets, but the problem then is that you have a logo where there's not very much of the team's predominant color (presuming jerseys would be creamsicle) and a whole lot of the accent colors (dark red, pewter). 

 

KAG9Ync.jpg

 

Would this still work with orange jerseys/socks or does it demand maroon as the primary color?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a note with Bucco Bruce, just because a design is effete does not exclude it from being menacing. 

 

I like how you've tweaked it, Admiral! In regards to your question, I think maroon would have to be the primary color on the uniforms, so they could look different enough from the failures of the pre-'97 team. Not only would they be only one of three maroon teams in the NFL (the others being the Cardinals and Washington), but it could give them something different from the Falcons. Pair it with a white helmet and white or orange pants (I'm one of a few people who love Wyoming and the white/powder/yellow Chargers) with maroon socks and you'd have a good look. Leave the orange for either a color rush-like set or a proper creamsicle throwback, while also limit pewter to embroidery/print accents alone (to maintain the metallic look). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like maroon as a primary color for the Buccaneers, though. It belongs to the Redskins. I think it's gotta be orange. The Vikings get away with little purple in the primary (though that's a deal where the primary is a functional secondary by way of not appearing on the helmet), the Falcons' logo is more black than red, the Bears' more orange than blue. 

 

The problem with maroon jerseys here would be that you're bringing back the logo people have always had trepidation about but not the colorway that people have gone back and developed fond feelings for, when I think there's an impulse to do it the other way around. That's why I had the idea of the pirate ship recolored in orange and red, so that the team would more or less look throwbacky without inviting "you're logo is gay" from dolts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, the admiral said:

His face can't have three colors, he looks splotchy-faced. 

 

I thought maybe pewter could work as the outline color so that there's a little more of it, and that on a white helmet it would be a nice accent to call back to the old pewter helmets, but the problem then is that you have a logo where there's not very much of the team's predominant color (presuming jerseys would be creamsicle) and a whole lot of the accent colors (dark red, pewter). 

 

KAG9Ync.jpg

 

Would this still work with orange jerseys/socks or does it demand maroon as the primary color?


Truth be told, I think it works without the extra outline. The part that’s currently maroon already contains everything, and the extra pewter line doesn’t do anything productive; it just fills in details.

 

I do agree that dark red is Washington’s thing, so I’d suggest either coloring it up like the old one (bright red base, orange skin, and white highlights), or using pewter as the base and then using orange and bright red for the face and details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, the admiral said:

His face can't have three colors, he looks splotchy-faced. 

 

I thought maybe pewter could work as the outline color so that there's a little more of it, and that on a white helmet it would be a nice accent to call back to the old pewter helmets, but the problem then is that you have a logo where there's not very much of the team's predominant color (presuming jerseys would be creamsicle) and a whole lot of the accent colors (dark red, pewter). 

 

KAG9Ync.jpg

 

Would this still work with orange jerseys/socks or does it demand maroon as the primary color?

 

I think making the feather the same light orange might fix that balance. Save white for the eyes and rare accents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Yeah, but that’s how we get all the puerile “kewl” designs so eager to show us how tough and fierce they are.   Yawn-(not to mention cringe-)inducing.

 

There’s room for all kinds of pirate designs throughout sports.  Or at least there should be.

 

I couldn't agree more, my friend. I cannot stand this obsessive compulsion to make every sports logo "tough and fierce". It's so overdone and boring frankly. Not unlike the muting/killing of color in sports sets in the 90s and 2000s, with both fads being connected to one another. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2019 at 2:13 PM, Brian in Boston said:


Yes, and the oversized plume in the source material looks every bit as foppishly asinine as the feather in the original "Bucco Bruce" logo. 

 

As I said in my original post:

"After all, one way to prevent your brand icon from being disparagingly compared to Errol Flynn is to refrain from embracing the costume design tropes of 1930s and '40s Hollywood swashbucklers when creating your logo. In other words, when it comes to piratical headwear, think less Captain Blood and more Pirates of the Caribbean."

In other words, when you're creating the branding package for a professional gridiron football team, perhaps taking your sartorial cues from a 1930s cinematic swashbuckler isn't the route to go. Believe me, I'm not arguing that Johnny Depp actually possesses more machismo than Errol Flynn. Rather, I'm simply pointing out that the headwear Depp sports in his corsair flicks doesn't look as flamboyant as the chapeaux that Flynn and his co-stars most often wore in their pirate films.                  

 

 

That isn't right though... Here's the same films you're referencing, with plumes everywhere.

spacer.png  spacer.png

They used it in the 30s and 40s because it was accurate, and the "Pirates" franchise used it, because it's accurate. Depp was a pirate, they were buccaneers. Regardless of whether or not it's intimidating, it's Tampa Bay's; it was totally unique to them. Is Bruce out of date, yes, but the skull flag is a dated look too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how the creamsicle orange uniforms would look with black instead of red. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

I wonder how the creamsicle orange uniforms would look with black instead of red. 

Like the old bengals with a white helmet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dont care said:

Like the old bengals with a white helmet

Could work with a black helmet maybe. At the minimum, they should at least go back to the Super Bowl look, although I really like the creamsicle. As I say that, I would not want to see creamsicle and red together again or Bucco Bruce. I used to prefer the originals, but the red and orange just has not aged well in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2019 at 7:26 PM, Gothamite said:

 

Yeah, but that’s how we get all the puerile “kewl” designs so eager to show us how tough and fierce they are.   Yawn-(not to mention cringe-)inducing.

 

There’s room for all kinds of pirate designs throughout sports.  Or at least there should be.

Yarr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

Could work with a black helmet maybe. At the minimum, they should at least go back to the Super Bowl look, although I really like the creamsicle. As I say that, I would not want to see creamsicle and red together again or Bucco Bruce. I used to prefer the originals, but the red and orange just has not aged well in my opinion.

No, I’ve seen concepts where they tried with pewter and it looked disjointed, I’m sure black would look even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.