Falcons New Unis 2020

[flyersfan]

Black numbers on the red could also differentiate them from the Cardinals. If they were truly tough to see, they wouldn't wear the color rush

[L10nheart404]

1 hour ago, IceCap said:

What does the current logo have going for it beyond electrocuted dogs and the greatest chokejob in sports history?

What the hell does any of that have to do with a logo? You sound like you  just want to stir the pot. Stay on topic and contribute a relevant point. People do things, and make mistakes everywhere. You don't see every company and team changing their image just to distance themselves from a stain in their history. They cut ties and move on. You should do the same, and actually talk about uniforms and logos, not things that never occurred on the field, or happened more than a few years ago.

[ahowe6464]

1 minute ago, L10nheart404 said:

What the hell does any of that have to do with a logo? You sound like you  just want to stir the pot. Stay on topic and contribute a relevant point. People do things, and make mistakes everywhere. You don't see every company and team changing their image just to distance themselves from a stain in their history. They cut ties and move on. You should do the same, and actually talk about uniforms and logos, not things that never occurred on the field, or happened more than a few years ago.

It has nothing to do with the logo itself, but what happened during its use.

 

The Patriots didn't win 6 trophies because of the Flying Elvis logo, but that's how it'll be remembered. Likewise, for as good as the Pat Patriot logo is, it'll always be associated with the Patsies who avoided winning like the plague. 

[The_Admiral]

4 minutes ago, ahowe6464 said:

as good as the Pat Patriot logo is

 

It's not good at all, it was one of the worst.

[ahowe6464]

5 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

It's not good at all, it was one of the worst.

It's very widely admired, though, no?

 

I guess I'd amend to as loved* as the Pat Patriot logo is...

[The_Admiral]

Not to my knowledge. Opinions on this board are mixed, leaning toward negative. I don't know what Patriots fans themselves think, but I can't imagine they'd be sentimental toward the Sullivan era. Maybe other people are nostalgic for the days of the Patriots being a moribund franchise with their dumb blotch for a logo.

[ahowe6464]

As far as I know, Patriots fans love it here. I guess that's my local bias talking 

[L10nheart404]

4 hours ago, ahowe6464 said:

It has nothing to do with the logo itself, but what happened during its use.

 

The Patriots didn't win 6 trophies because of the Flying Elvis logo, but that's how it'll be remembered. Likewise, for as good as the Pat Patriot logo is, it'll always be associated with the Patsies who avoided winning like the plague. 

I get all of that. But... How many people you think see the Falcons logo, and say " Oh Lord, I'm having Michael Vick flashbacks" ...or "That logo looks like 28-3". That's insane. People recognize the Steelers, Patriots, 49ers, and Packers so well because their logo is synonymous with winning championships. The Falcons have had moderate success, and bad experiences. That doesn't mean, we have to change our logo. It can be a symbol for some of the greatest Falcons teams of all time, first time for back to back playoff teams, and it's plastered everywhere in Mercedes Benz stadium. It's not like we're the Browns, Raiders, or Jags. We do have more good than bad that's happened under the current logo.

[The_Admiral]

Both versions of the Falcons logo are bad for different reasons! Back to the drawing board.

[BBTV]

The old Falcons logo is an all-time classic.  I don't throw this word around loosely, but it's 'iconic'.  I've made this point a hundred times in a hundred threads and I'm too tired and drunk to make it again, but it is fantastic in its simplicity.

 

The only issue I have with it is that it's a victim of its own success, and has been appropriated by hundreds of high schools and other organizations around the country, if not the world.  Hell, there's a tile retailer in South Philly that uses that logo.

 

Those that know my posting patterns and aren't old curmudgeons that paint people with a broad brush know that I'm not the "they should go back to" type, but if not for the potential issue with them being unable to defend the trademark anymore, they should absolutely go back to that mark.

 

The current one is an objective mess, for reasons that have been pointed out in other threads.  It's not that it just doesn't look good, it's very flawed, and once you see the flaws, you can't unsee.

[IceCap]

2 hours ago, Cujo said:

 

So we agree they should do something fresh, even though we know that won't be happening.

I think the old logo looks pretty good, to be honest. Black bird, white outline, red shell? Crisp and distinctive.

I'd take a new bird over the robo bird though, for sure.

 

1 hour ago, L10nheart404 said:

You sound like you  just want to stir the pot.

It's called an opinion, man. Not everyone's going to agree with you. Assigning ulterior motives to people who don't like what you like is dumb. Stop it.

 

1 hour ago, L10nheart404 said:

What the hell does any of that have to do with a logo?...Stay on topic and contribute a relevant point.

I am staying on topic. Logos and uniforms are associated with eras and what happened to the teams during them. It's why the Yankees will never, ever get rid of their pinstripes while the Padres change every five years.

Does Michael Vick running a dog fighting ring or the team blowing a 28-3 lead in the Super Bowl count against the logo? No, it doesn't (I've already gone over what I feel its shortcomings are). Regardless, these were the major events that have occurred so far under its tenure. It's not "off topic" to point out a team may need to dump its logo and help freshen up its image.

 

 

[Chawls]

1 hour ago, L10nheart404 said:

But... How many people you think see the Falcons logo, and say […]"That logo looks like 28-3". 

As a Saints fan? Often, because the thought of the FAILcons choking brings me joy (especially having to swallow so many recent heartbreaking playoff loses). 

In all seriousness, the Falcons “current” logo is one of my faves, but I’ll admit it’s nostalgic for me. I started following the NFL in 2003, and while the uniforms of that era are outdated, I can’t deny that I like the logo, especially because it has more color and “fierceness” than the previous logo. TBH, I simply find the original logo to be a bad drawing unworthy of a pro team, especially with the advancements in illustration technology in 2020. 

 

[andrewharrington]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

The old Falcons logo is an all-time classic.  I don't throw this word around loosely, but it's 'iconic'.  I've made this point a hundred times in a hundred threads and I'm too tired and drunk to make it again, but it is fantastic in its simplicity.

 

The only issue I have with it is that it's a victim of its own success, and has been appropriated by hundreds of high schools and other organizations around the country, if not the world.  Hell, there's a tile retailer in South Philly that uses that logo.

 

Those that know my posting patterns and aren't old curmudgeons that paint people with a broad brush know that I'm not the "they should go back to" type, but if not for the potential issue with them being unable to defend the trademark anymore, they should absolutely go back to that mark.

 

The current one is an objective mess, for reasons that have been pointed out in other threads.  It's not that it just doesn't look good, it's very flawed, and once you see the flaws, you can't unsee.

Yeah, but the old one certainly had it’s flaws, too. The focal point is essentially a vast expanse of black emptiness, it’s very static for allegedly being a depiction of a bird in flight, and while we all thoroughly dissected the keyline of the current one over multiple pages, wtf was this keyline?!

 

 

I know they updated it toward the end of the all-black era, but come on.

 

I think something between the old and new would be best, to be honest.

[RedRenesis]

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

Both versions of the Falcons logo are bad for different reasons! Back to the drawing board.

Sometime ago I did a quick mock up and all I did was take the current logo and delete the red stripes out of it and it was immediately 100% better, I thought.  Those stripes are enough to ruin the whole thing.  

[BBTV]

I really never looked at the keyline that closely, but yeah... wtf.

 

It could be cleaned up, and maybe a few fewer lines in the wings, but the overall look and feel should be maintained.

[IceCap]

55 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

know they updated it toward the end of the all-black era, but come on.

 

44 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

I really never looked at the keyline that closely, but yeah... wtf.

 

It could be cleaned up, and maybe a few fewer lines in the wings, but the overall look and feel should be maintained.

Yeah they did. The version of the logo they had in the uniform refresh prior to the 2003 rebrand had much cleaner keyline.

 

EDIT-

Not the best shot, but you can see the keyline is cleaner.

 

[Silver_Star]

I think the Falcons should just go red lids, black jerseys, white pants, red lids, white jerseys and pants. Then a red lids and black jersey and pants option as well as a red jersey option (NO RED PANTS AT ALL) for their new uniforms. Keep the logo the same, but change the word mark. I wouldn't put any stripe patterns on the red helmets and just leave it as is.

Besides if the Panthers end up going with Black helmets if their change, then the Falcons need to try to have a different helmet color so it wouldn't clash with the Bucs and Panthers (if the Panthers decide to change their uniforms which I do expect they are going with Black helmets if they do).

[DCarp1231]

“The Falcons should go with a red helmet”

[Digby]

14 hours ago, the admiral said:

Not to my knowledge. Opinions on this board are mixed, leaning toward negative. I don't know what Patriots fans themselves think, but I can't imagine they'd be sentimental toward the Sullivan era. Maybe other people are nostalgic for the days of the Patriots being a moribund franchise with their dumb blotch for a logo.

 

Pat the Patriot logo merch sells pretty well. But I think it's moreso because it's retro kitschy, not actual nostalgia for that era of football. (Particularly because of the under-35 set who wouldn't even remember it but like the old logo on a snapback.)

[Brave-Bird 08]

23 hours ago, IceCap said:

What does the current logo have going for it beyond electrocuted dogs and the greatest chokejob in sports history?

 

Okay, I actually laughed at this. But, if we are being serious, the Atlanta Falcons had a massive branding problem for years. A lot of it had to do with the simple aesthetic presentation of the team. When they played in Atlanta Fulton County the stadium had red and blue seats and blue walls, and the Falcons looked like they were renting the space. In the Georgia Dome, the only signage of significance was the endzones and logo at midfield, but the walls around the seating areas were grey, the façade outside was pink and teal, the seats were green. 

 

I know that seems like rambling, but I bring it up because Arthur Blank made a huge point to brand the team and the environment to finally feel like a professional team that the town cared about. Both in Atlanta Stadium and the Georgia Dome, when you went to a Falcons game it felt like they were just tenants and a sideshow. 

 

Blank's logo change wasn't just a logo change -- he took over the branding and exponentially increased the attention to detail in the dome to make it feel like the Falcons' home … red seats, repainting the dome red and black on the outside, paying for red and black signage and creating the ring of honor banners. The logo has a lot of sentinmental value because it speaks to a massive overhaul and the TLC Blank gave the club, and it translated into success. Even with the Vick disaster, the Falcons have made the playoffs 8 out of their 14 appearances since Blank took over in 2002. 

 

The new stadium had a ton of inspiration behind the same exact aesthetic themes that the 2003 logo. Look at my avatar … there is more than one version of the robo bird, lol. But seriously, when you see the 2003-Present logo, you see the love and care given by Arthur Blank. It's his logo. Those uniforms, those were also his stamp and a big reason why they lasted so long is because Blank identified with them. The old logo brings back reminders of lost seasons, and it literally from a design standpoint looks like a bird that is defeated. The entire purpose of the redesign was to create a logo that looked dignified, aggressive, and forward-moving and they achieved it. 

 

The current logo has so much sentimental value that it literally was built into the seats in the east end of the stadium as a major feature of the lower bowl that you see when looking out into the city. There is so much foundation built into the current brand, and the new uniforms were Blank relenting to pressure because they didn't age well. But the logo itself is very symbolic and empowering and means something to fans.