Falcons New Unis 2020

[DG_ThenNowForever]

18 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

So then the Raiders are historically gold and black? 

The Jets are historically navy and gold?

The Eagles are historically powder blue and yellow?

 

If those are the colors of your childhood, then yes.

 

If this is the first NFL game you ever saw your fandom is skewed forever:

[MDGP]

38 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Within reason of course. But when a team has a look for their first 10-20+ years, that to me is who they are. And, the Jets were never navy and gold, that was the Titans. 

 

So the Packers are a primarily Navy Blue team to you, because for 28 of their first 38 seasons they wore Navy blue primarily.

[L10nheart404]

Just now, MDGP said:

 

So the Packers are a primarily Navy Blue team to you, because for 28 of their first 38 seasons they wore Navy blue primarily.

Either you're purposely missing the point, or you just want to go back and forth. "Historically" means what they wore through their history. The green yellow is synonymous with GB, as is red/black with the falcons. We aren't talking about their identity as a whole, just certain elements. It's pretty self explanatory

[MDGP]

49 minutes ago, L10nheart404 said:

Either you're purposely missing the point, or you just want to go back and forth. "Historically" means what they wore through their history. The green yellow is synonymous with GB, as is red/black with the falcons. We aren't talking about their identity as a whole, just certain elements. It's pretty self explanatory

I was responding to the assertion that was worn for their first 10-20+ years is their historical identity, and I'm simply pointing out the flaws in that logic. Saying that a red helmet is the identity of the Falcons is just about as flawed. The Falcons have worn the black helmets for longer and have demonstrated much more success in them. It's like saying the Patriots identity is the Pat Patriot jerseys because they didn't start wearing the Flying Elvis until 94 or that the Bucs white helmets are their identity because they didn't wear Pewter until 95.

 

Every part of a team's history has to be taken into account, when discussing a team's identity should be, and a lot of that comes down to opinion. There's no steadfast quantifiable rule to what a team's historical identity is unless they've literally never worn anything else.

[L10nheart404]

36 minutes ago, MDGP said:

Saying that a red helmet is the identity of the Falcons is just about as flawed

Where did anyone say that? One person said "people like change, for change sake" , My post was a reply to that... Being, the Falcons wouldn't be making a change for the hell of it, it has historical relevance. That should clarify any confusion.

[MDGP]

16 minutes ago, L10nheart404 said:

Where did anyone say that? One person said "people like change, for change sake" , My post was a reply to that... Being, the Falcons wouldn't be making a change for the hell of it, it has historical relevance. That should clarify any confusion.

 

I'm referring to what hawk36 said, and I quote "A brunette can dye their hair blond for 30 years but they are still a brunette," which, if one exercises basic logic, was stating that that even though the Falcons wore black helmets, they are a red helmet team no matter what. 

 

I'm not even sure we're arguing the same points here. You're definitely not wrong that there is a reason for them to go back to red. I think I misinterpreted that you were saying the red helmet is THE historical look of the Falcons, not AN historical look.

 

[L10nheart404]

Just now, MDGP said:

 

I'm referring to what hawk36 said, and I quote "A brunette can dye their hair blond for 30 years but they are still a brunette," which, if one exercises basic logic, was stating that that even though the Falcons wore black helmets, they are a red helmet team no matter what. 

 

I'm not even sure we're arguing the same points here. You're definitely not wrong that there is a reason for them to go back to red. I think I misinterpreted that you were saying the red helmet is THE historical look of the Falcons, not AN historical look.

 

Yeah, our signals got crossed lol. I get what you meant. But yeah, we understand each other now.

[Meshmaster101]

2 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

If those are the colors of your childhood, then yes.

 

If this is the first NFL game you ever saw your fandom is skewed forever:

i definitely don't believe that to be true, not everyone has baby bird syndrome lol 

[-Akronite-]

On 4/1/2020 at 2:58 AM, the admiral said:

2) No one's ever pretended, it was always intended to be an F and they made it more obvious upon the redesign such that you can't not see it as an F unless you can't read.

 

I think it's fair to say, especially with the original logo, that their execution brings the intent into question (not contradicting you). As I'm sure it's been noted before, the F is a redundant element in the first place, but I wonder if someone without prior knowledge of the team would notice the F?

 

4 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

If those are the colors of your childhood, then yes.

 

If this is the first NFL game you ever saw your fandom is skewed forever:

 

When people say "historically," generally I think they mean not only what they've worn in the past but what they are/were known for wearing. So I think you are going against common usage to make it synonymous with "original."

 

Also not buying your premise as the concept of throwbacks does not take a long time to learn and process.

[chakfu]

This thinking can lead to Atlanta Hawks in blue. That belongs in St Louis.

[BlazerBlaze]

So 404 Day isn't going to be the jersey unveil. Also Brett says it's not going to be a weekend and I can't imagine they'd wan to do it draft week so I'm guessing it'll be sometime between the 13th and 17th. 

 

 

[IceCap]

On 4/2/2020 at 12:59 PM, hawk36 said:

And, the Jets were never navy and gold, that was the Titans.

It's the same team

[MCM0313]

On 4/2/2020 at 2:47 PM, MDGP said:

I was responding to the assertion that was worn for their first 10-20+ years is their historical identity, and I'm simply pointing out the flaws in that logic. Saying that a red helmet is the identity of the Falcons is just about as flawed. The Falcons have worn the black helmets for longer and have demonstrated much more success in them. It's like saying the Patriots identity is the Pat Patriot jerseys because they didn't start wearing the Flying Elvis until 94 or that the Bucs white helmets are their identity because they didn't wear Pewter until 95.

 

Every part of a team's history has to be taken into account, when discussing a team's identity should be, and a lot of that comes down to opinion. There's no steadfast quantifiable rule to what a team's historical identity is unless they've literally never worn anything else.

‘93, ‘97. Agreed otherwise. 

[ahowe6464]

1 hour ago, BlazerBlaze said:

So 404 Day isn't going to be the jersey unveil. Also Brett says it's not going to be a weekend and I can't imagine they'd wan to do it draft week so I'm guessing it'll be sometime between the 13th and 17th. 

 

 

Why would they not use today to unveil the new uniforms? "Today is about ALL of Atlanta, not the Falcons" might be the stupidest thing I've read today. The Falcons are a part of ALL of Atlanta, no?

[dont care]

A part of, they aren’t all of Atlanta. I can see them not wanting to take the spotlight away from the rest of the ATL when it’s a day for them too.

[hawk36]

1 hour ago, IceCap said:

It's the same team

No. One was the Titans and the other is the Jets. Changing name and mascot obviously changes the historical brand. 

[andrewharrington]

On 4/1/2020 at 7:02 AM, AndrewMLind said:

2) Can you provide any proof that was the designer’s intention as opposed to something someone believed they saw after the fact, and then everyone thereafter assumed was true because they saw it in slideshows about “Hidden Things In Sports Logos?” If not, it’s the same as the Eagles’ logo having an “E.” Just a popular notion, but not factual.

Of course.

[AndrewMLind]

Just now, andrewharrington said:

Of course.

 

I more so meant the original logo (because it's entirely possible the designers of the current logo piggybacked off the "idea" that it was supposed to mimic an "F," rather than it being the original designer's intention), but I'll gladly admit I was wrong.

[dont care]

10 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

No. One was the Titans and the other is the Jets. Changing name and mascot obviously changes the historical brand. 

It’s the same franchise. A rebrand doesn’t mean the team totally restarts. The teams history goes along with them. Steve McNair didn’t play for 2 Separate teams In tennessee. He played for the oilers who then became the titans 

[ahowe6464]

30 minutes ago, dont care said:

A part of, they aren’t all of Atlanta. I can see them not wanting to take the spotlight away from the rest of the ATL when it’s a day for them too.

True, I understand the rationale there. My thought process was more so that unveiling today could add to, rather than draw attention away from, whatever festivities the day entails, I guess