Jump to content

Falcons New Unis 2020


BlazerBlaze

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:


Why does it matter that it looks like a “pause” symbol if it clearly communicates what it’s supposed to? A zero looks like an O, but no one mistakes it for that on a jersey, just as no one mistakes a plain 1 for anything but a 1.

 

spacer.png

 

Now, I do believe whoever sews the numbers on the Falcons’ jerseys sets Julio’s 1s too close together, but that’s a correctable human error, not an inherent problem with the typeface.

 

You can tell the Bears really know what they’re doing in this regard.

 

 

Its a Play action pass??  I was doing a Pause Action this whole time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2020 at 6:04 PM, colortv said:

Falcons need a new logo...that thing looks bush league in this day and age.

 

I'd go as far as to say it's the worst primary logo in the league. When you see all of them together, you get a lot of clean, relatively simple looks. And then there's that over-designed nonsense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ScubaSteve said:

 

I'd go as far as to say it's the worst primary logo in the league. When you see all of them together, you get a lot of clean, relatively simple looks. And then there's that over-designed nonsense

 

I mean, you're entitled to your opinion, but that's wild to call it worst in the league. It's a very clean and nicely designed logo. Same guy that did Texans, Cards update, and some other. Can you explain what about it seems "over-designed" to you? Jaguars, to me, feels over-designed. Two golds, tons of little shards and jagged lines. That's a logo that has a lot going on and could be simplified. Falcons, though? That one's pretty clean to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ScubaSteve said:

 

I'd go as far as to say it's the worst primary logo in the league. When you see all of them together, you get a lot of clean, relatively simple looks. And then there's that over-designed nonsense

It looks better than Baltimore's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, ScubaSteve said:

 

I'd go as far as to say it's the worst primary logo in the league. When you see all of them together, you get a lot of clean, relatively simple looks. And then there's that over-designed nonsense

 

I tried to smooth it out a couple days ago.

 

 

I don't think the current logo is the worst in the league, but it's got a lot of unnecessary stuff going on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, andrewharrington said:


Why does it matter that it looks like a “pause” symbol if it clearly communicates what it’s supposed to? A zero looks like an O, but no one mistakes it for that on a jersey, just as no one mistakes a plain 1 for anything but a 1.

 

spacer.png

 

Now, I do believe whoever sews the numbers on the Falcons’ jerseys sets Julio’s 1s too close together, but that’s a correctable human error, not an inherent problem with the typeface.

 

You can tell the Bears really know what they’re doing in this regard.

Yes, the Bears align the two digits better than the Falcons do. As a result, their 11 doesn't look like a pause symbol. I can simultaneously like the Bears application of their font and hate the Falcons application of the font -- in fact, due to their alignment, this pause symbol never dawned on me for Chicago.

 

If I could start it over, I'd say that their font application is the problem. Thanks for pointing that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CDunn said:

The left side outline is twice as wide as the right to help show forward motion.

 

Ewwww that's an awful way to design "motion". 

 

Why is the outline near the top wider than the bottom?  Why is the outline below the beak thinner than above the claws? 

 

It's not a clean and good logo...it's really quite a mess. @McCarthy's fix makes it a lot better.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CDunn said:

 

I mean, you're entitled to your opinion, but that's wild to call it worst in the league. It's a very clean and nicely designed logo. Same guy that did Texans, Cards update, and some other. Can you explain what about it seems "over-designed" to you? Jaguars, to me, feels over-designed. Two golds, tons of little shards and jagged lines. That's a logo that has a lot going on and could be simplified. Falcons, though? That one's pretty clean to me.

 

Obviously everyone will have a different worst logo opinion. But I think the best way to describe it is it's the most "abstract" of the NFL animal logos. To me, it doesn't really commit to being a falcon or an F, and hovers awkwardly in between. I also think the additional silver and white outlines are overkill. I should rephrase that I don't think it's a "bad logo", it just sticks out like a sore thumb for me compared to the other ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ScubaSteve said:

 

Obviously everyone will have a different worst logo opinion. But I think the best way to describe it is it's the most "abstract" of the NFL animal logos. To me, it doesn't really commit to being a falcon or an F, and hovers awkwardly in between. I also think the additional silver and white outlines are overkill. I should rephrase that I don't think it's a "bad logo", it just sticks out like a sore thumb for me compared to the other ones.

 

To me, the Falcons made an awesome update to a dated logo with bad dimensions. They've never had a logo that properly looked like an F BUT that is pointless anyway. Why do we need an F for Falcons when we are looking at a falcon? Same with the people trying to see an E in the Eagles logo, what's the point? Maybe if the Falcon looked like an A for Atlanta...

 

That doesn't mean it's perfect. It could be cleaned up, simplified, maybe just drop the gray, but it's only a problem for them if the new jerseys don't match. If they go throwback I think they need to make the logo simpler, but if it's still a modern looking enough set, they could do very little with the logo and be fine. Also gray does not need any bigger focus and I agree that they should avoid becoming a pro version of the Bulldogs.

 

Then again I'm among the few who is fine with their current uniforms too. They have old school looks that are also great, but I definitely prefer the black helmet look. Red helmets don't do it for them IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

Ewwww that's an awful way to design "motion". 

 

Why is the outline near the top wider than the bottom?  Why is the outline below the beak thinner than above the claws? 

 

It's not a clean and good logo...it's really quite a mess. @McCarthy's fix makes it a lot better.  

 

 

It's a pretty common way to convey motion and also depth. I would assume the other outline differences are for depth. It's not supposed to be a flat bird. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CDunn said:

It's a pretty common way to convey motion and also depth. I would assume the other outline differences are for depth. It's not supposed to be a flat bird. 

 

So the outlines around the claws that goes from thick to thin to thick is for depth? Should I get out my 3D glasses so I can see it properly? 

 

I've never seen someone defend horrible outlines like this.  

 

Consistent weights of outlines are better 99 times out of 100...and this Falcons logo is not the exception. Far from it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

So the outlines around the claws that goes from thick to thin to thick is for depth? Should I get out my 3D glasses so I can see it properly? 

 

I've never seen someone defend horrible outlines like this.  

Dude, I'm just telling you what I think the designer's rationale might be. Also, it doesn't go thick/thin/thick. The width around the top and front of the claw are the same and then it widens out on the bottom a little.

 

I do think variable width outlines are more visually interesting than single width, when that decision makes sense, which I think it does in a logo depicting a flying falcon. It's not a perfect logo, but I'm surprised to see it get this much hate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CDunn said:

Also, it doesn't go thick/thin/thick. The width around the top and front of the claw are the same and then it widens out on the bottom a little.

 

Yes it does. Look at it again. 

 

The outline is thick on top of the claws, thin around the curl, and then thicker on the bottom. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

Yes it does. Look at it again. 

 

The outline is thick on top of the claws, thin around the curl, and then thicker on the bottom. 

 

 

Are you looking at the one in McCarthy's post? That's not the official logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

The first logo shown in McCarthy’s post is the same on on the mothership...

 

Listen, I've talked about this way more than I care to already, so I'm probably not gonna reply after this. But it's not the same as the official logo. The white and silver outlines are a little off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CDunn said:

Listen, I've talked about this way more than I care to already, so I'm probably not gonna reply after this. But it's not the same as the official logo. The white and silver outlines are a little off. 

 

Show us the official logo then. 

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.