Jump to content

2020-2021 NHL Changes


squamfan

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, the admiral said:

I like the triangle for the Sharks because San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose form a triangle, albeit a very scalene one. 


Yeah, kind of. It’s supposed to represent The Red Triangle. The real western part of that triangle is out in the Farallon Islands, though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. I get what they’re going for with the triangle, I just don’t think it works when you try to mash it up with half a shark.  Or when you give it too many outlines. And it looks really bad when you monkey with the triangle shape to give it “motion” or “energy” or some nonsense like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My suspicion is that the bend at the top of the triangle was meant to represent just the body of water (everything above the “curve” is the land portion of the Bay Area). It’s a dumb idea that doesn’t translate very well and sounds pretty Nikespeakish to me, but that feels like the only even somewhat logical explanation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the original triangle. The current one is goofy but the entire current identity is goofy. 

I think the original look still works- that throwback from a few years ago was absolutely beautiful. The original logo just needs a few tweaks. I know that's what the current logo is trying to do, but they went too far. Clean up the original logo- and actually get the shape of the hockey stick right- and I think you'll have something that really works. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2020 at 2:05 PM, Survival79 said:

 

I put this together a few years ago.

  • Modified logos
  • 1991-92 through 1997-98 colors
  • 1991-92 through 1996-97 uniforms

BO59TU4.png

AWESOME sauce! Did you happen to do a mock up with the modern logo with the '98 - '07 uniform?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2020 at 11:19 PM, FiddySicks said:


This is MUCH better than what they have now. The Sharks should have a bit of a darker, murky looking color scheme. That’s what you see in the waters around the actual bay, which is called the Red Triangle because of the prevalence of Sharks. If anything, a small touch of dark red could’ve worked really well. 
spacer.png


But instead they threw the whole look out of whack by using that garishly bright and ugly yellowish orange color. They basically tried to split the difference between yellow and orange (maybe because of the baseball teams?) and ended up with this awful color that looks like a Manila envelope. And instead of keeping it just to the stick, which still would’ve sucked but at least made sense, they added it to the striping pattern! It’s such a STUPID inclusion. It would be like if the Yankees added red highlights to their uniforms because the baseball in the primary logo has red stitching. It’s not just the worst part of this particular Sharks branding era, it’s one of my least favorite colors that any pro sports team has ever used. And I say that as a Bucs fan 🤦🏼‍♂️

This thought of red has really hit me. It all makes sense. The Kelowna Rockets use a teal/red/black perfectly, so no doubt it is a palette that works (just need to add the gray). Including red would be a better nod to the red triangle. And what is the only color that can be seen as San Jose’s beloved shark head is dropped? The glowing red eye. I 100% approve of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TheHealthiestScratch said:

This thought of red has really hit me. It all makes sense. The Kelowna Rockets use a teal/red/black perfectly, so no doubt it is a palette that works (just need to add the gray). Including red would be a better nod to the red triangle. And what is the only color that can be seen as San Jose’s beloved shark head is dropped? The glowing red eye. I 100% approve of this.

 

You see, I personally don't think red is needed. Just like the orange, it only serves to busy up the colour scheme and lessen the sleek nature of the design (especially appropriate for sharks). It's a bit like the red used in the old Blues' jerseys. Unnecessary and it just makes it all look like it's trying to accomplish too much at once. IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bayne said:

You see, I personally don't think red is needed. Just like the orange, it only serves to busy up the colour scheme and lessen the sleek nature of the design (especially appropriate for sharks). It's a bit like the red used in the old Blues' jerseys. Unnecessary and it just makes it all look like it's trying to accomplish too much at once. IMO.

To be fair, red is a prominent color on the Missouri flag, so there's at least a reason for it to exist there.

 

The Sharks don't need red. The city doesn't use red, it uses...well, the Islanders' colors of blue, orange and white. Black, red and white is the LA Sharks colors, and if you add teal on top of that? It'd be a messy, messy look.

 

Teal, black, white and silver was perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ridleylash said:

To be fair, red is a prominent color on the Missouri flag, so there's at least a reason for it to exist there.

The Missouri flag is no reason for the Blues to do anything. There's also a couple of bears on the flag, maybe they should put those on their socks as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bayne said:

 

Just like the orange, it only serves to busy up the colour scheme and lessen the sleek nature of the design (especially appropriate for sharks).

 

The stick should be orange but the colour should not appear anywhere else on the uniform.  They had it right the first time.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, schlim said:

The Missouri flag is no reason for the Blues to do anything. There's also a couple of bears on the flag, maybe they should put those on their socks as well?

I mean...literally the state the team is located in, and hell, the city flag is mostly red, and said city flag is a hanger effect on their current jerseys;

spacer.png

 

As for the state flag's bears, the team's name and visual identity have never had anything to do with bears, so there's no precedent for that in terms of the team's visual identity; while red is a team color that was used from 1985 until 1998. It's an apples to oranges comparison, especially since there's already two teams that use bears as iconography, one of which is in the same division as the Blues.


The Blues having red as a secondary in their color palette isn't as horrible as some people claim it is. I actually prefer it over the double-blue they currently use, honestly, it's a more visually-interesting color scheme, and one that has basis in the city's flag and iconography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Flames1fan said:

Did not make them, but what these where a thing.

Sharks mock jersey teal

 

Old Logo, New Jersey, Who Dis? - Teal Town USA

They are just so beautiful.  I don't even care about the shortcomings of the original logo.  At this point it is vintage, and we accept all sorts of crap because it is how it always was in the sports logo/uniform world...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nordiks_19 said:

These are gorgeous, but wouldn't those many stripes be too heavy for the players ?

That is Funny as all hell. I still cannot believe Ownership / Management used that lame ass excuse. Never heard Chicago or Boston or NY Rangers use Waist Stripes as an excuse

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.