Jump to content

2020-2021 NHL Changes


squamfan

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, monkeypower said:

Well they are the Golden Knights and not the Grey Knights.

 

Cripes, I wasn't being entirely serious with this. But where is the line when it becomes weird that a team isn't wearing the colour that is in their name as a primary colour? Is Vegas fine because like Morgo said, the knight in the logo is gold?

 

Would the Blue Jackets get a pass if they didn't wear a primary blue jersey, or is the "blue" too tied into the team identity with the Civil War? The Blackhawks used to wear black and their name was the two word "Black Hawks", but them wearing red is fine because they weren't named after the colour nor the bird?

 

The Blues and the Browns don't really need to wear the colour in their name because they aren't named after the colours, but the Reds not in red would be dumb.

 

Or like, as noted on the boards many times, the White Sox not wearing white socks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, monkeypower said:

 

Cripes, I wasn't being entirely serious with this. But where is the line when it becomes weird that a team isn't wearing the colour that is in their name as a primary colour? Is Vegas fine because like Morgo said, the knight in the logo is gold?

 

Would the Blue Jackets get a pass if they didn't wear a primary blue jersey, or is the "blue" too tied into the team identity with the Civil War? The Blackhawks used to wear black and their name was the two word "Black Hawks", but them wearing red is fine because they weren't named after the colour nor the bird?

 

The Blues and the Browns don't really need to wear the colour in their name because they aren't named after the colours, but the Reds not in red would be dumb.

 

Or like, as noted on the boards many times, the White Sox not wearing white socks.

With Vegas, the golden part isn't what was wanted. Foley wanted the Knights sans adjective but couldnt get it so he added Golden. Not as important as the other imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems the Golden Knights are following the same trajectory as the Florida Panthers.

 

1) Knock it out the park with their inaugural set

2) Introduce a lazy recolour for an alternate that resembles a fashion jersey

3) Phase original dark-jersey out for said recolour.

 

Hopefully they don't end up with an MLS shield and chest stripe that doesn't go all the way around...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Survival79 said:

Foley also expressed his elation with the Knights’ new gold jersey that was unveiled Oct. 2. He said the gray home jerseys are “a little reserved” and the gold will drown out the team colors worn by opposing fans.

 

“I wouldn’t mind the gray jersey eventually matriculating to be the third jersey and the gold jersey being our home jersey,” he said. “It’s really a good-looking jersey.”

 

Considering how polarizing the jersey has been I don't see this happening. It functions perfectly as an alternate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, monkeypower said:

Well they are the Golden Knights and not the Grey Knights.

 

I can't stand this kind of criticism. It's like there is no room for nuance, no desire for subtlety. "They're called the Golden Knights so they should obviously wear gold!" No they shouldn't. Since when has a colour designation always been an accurate descriptor of the actual thing it's naming? There's examples of this all over the place and to me that's what makes a name like that more interesting. I mean they already do wear some gold so it's not really even effective in that sense, but at least it's showing some restraint.

 

But hey, it's Vegas so I guess all bets are off. And people who have unorthodox opinions and ideas are going to be vindicated by an anomaly in the league. So whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Morgan33 said:

Seems the Golden Knights are following the same trajectory as the Florida Panthers.

 

1) Knock it out the park with their inaugural set

2) Introduce a lazy recolour for an alternate that resembles a fashion jersey

3) Phase original dark-jersey out for said recolour.

 

Hopefully they don't end up with an MLS shield and chest stripe that doesn't go all the way around...

I’ve always liked the navy Panthers jersey (minus the broken stick added to the logo) better than the red. I didn’t realize that belonged in the unpopular opinions thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, monkeypower said:

 

Cripes, I wasn't being entirely serious with this. But where is the line when it becomes weird that a team isn't wearing the colour that is in their name as a primary colour? Is Vegas fine because like Morgo said, the knight in the logo is gold?

 

Would the Blue Jackets get a pass if they didn't wear a primary blue jersey, or is the "blue" too tied into the team identity with the Civil War? The Blackhawks used to wear black and their name was the two word "Black Hawks", but them wearing red is fine because they weren't named after the colour nor the bird?

 

The Blues and the Browns don't really need to wear the colour in their name because they aren't named after the colours, but the Reds not in red would be dumb.

 

Or like, as noted on the boards many times, the White Sox not wearing white socks.

I think it really depends on the situation and I really can't decide what I should feel about Vegas, in theory I want them to wear gold because I feel like that is how it should be but on the other. hand I think the grey is a way better look. For every other team you named I think 100% they should wear their color. they after named after except the Blackhawks. If they were named after hawks that are black I would want them too but they fall into a whole different category. This rule could also apply to the blues but I'm happy they use blue so we don't need to think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because a team has a color in their name doesn't always mean that color must be heavily emphasized. Paul Brown naming aside, the Browns wearing monobrown look worse than the Browns wearing brown jerseys with orange pants. Similarly, Vegas wearing grey at home with black pants and gloves and a grey helmet looks better then them wearing sparkly gold jerseys with a grey helmet, white gloves and half-gold half-grey socks.

 

There's a point where general aesthetics should trump "this is the name, therefore this should be the look"-type talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bayne said:

 

I can't stand this kind of criticism. It's like there is no room for nuance, no desire for subtlety. "They're called the Golden Knights so they should obviously wear gold!" No they shouldn't. Since when has a colour designation always been an accurate descriptor of the actual thing it's naming? There's examples of this all over the place and to me that's what makes a name like that more interesting. I mean they already do wear some gold so it's not really even effective in that sense, but at least it's showing some restraint.

 

But hey, it's Vegas so I guess all bets are off. And people who have unorthodox opinions and ideas are going to be vindicated by an anomaly in the league. So whatever.

 

18 hours ago, monkeypower said:

 

Cripes, I wasn't being entirely serious with this. But where is the line when it becomes weird that a team isn't wearing the colour that is in their name as a primary colour? Is Vegas fine because like Morgo said, the knight in the logo is gold?

 

Would the Blue Jackets get a pass if they didn't wear a primary blue jersey, or is the "blue" too tied into the team identity with the Civil War? The Blackhawks used to wear black and their name was the two word "Black Hawks", but them wearing red is fine because they weren't named after the colour nor the bird?

 

The Blues and the Browns don't really need to wear the colour in their name because they aren't named after the colours, but the Reds not in red would be dumb.

 

Or like, as noted on the boards many times, the White Sox not wearing white socks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to wait to see these under arena lights and on the ice before I really hate them too much.  I know I should probably hate these things, but if they come off with a real gold sparkle...I might be able to get behind these as a uniform you see on "Special Sunday Games" or whatever.  Yeah they're going to be gaudy, but if they look shiny like the gold on their dark-gray's, and not mustard like, well, almost any other gold uniform we've seen, I think they could fill a unique void, for a unique market that is kind of known for the "show".  They'll be gaudy, but I think they're gaudy on purpose, and that gives them enough purpose.  If they're mustard, I'll hate 'em, and they'll ruin the whole thing, but if they can maintain the shine...they might be a unique curiosity I could get behind as a 3rd (though please, never elevate these things past that.  Keep them as a "special" night thing and never as the primary.  The primary uniform is good as is).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

really the only problem with the vegas jerseys is the color balance and contrast.

 

those big white stripes just absolutely ruin it. gold and black would have been fine. they didn't have to follow the exact template to a T for an alternate. gold body, black to anchor it down, and grey to emphasize the distinction between grey and black that makes their identity is really all they needed. a little red if they desire, too...

 

but that gold body, grey (that looks like ugly faded black when it isn't paired WITH black, imo) and clunky white stripes ruin it.

 

honestly, more black would go a long way to making it look solid. it just looks weak to me, and like a bad concept or fashion jersey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 1908_Cubs said:

if they come off with a real gold sparkle...

 

Yes, they sparkle.

Yes, they are the same gold color as the stripes on the H&A.

Yes, they're unapologetically Las Vegas.

 

Here's a high res pic that illustrates the sparkle and color:  https://www.reddit.com/r/hockeyjerseys/comments/ja6d8c/in_true_reddit_fashion_10_days_after_calling_this/

 

copy/paste:   https://i.redd.it/83u31fysfss51.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, _J_ said:

With Vegas, the golden part isn't what was wanted. Foley wanted the Knights sans adjective but couldnt get it so he added Golden. Not as important as the other imo

No, he wanted to name them the "BLACK Knights" in honor of Army as he graduated from West Point. He literally named his businesses "Black Knight___" (Financial, Sports & Entertainment, etc.) Due to trademarks, he couldn't use Black Knights and so he settled on "Golden Knights", though not without further copyright issues. He never intended on only naming them "Knights". That would've probably been the least contested route.

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.