Patriots Unveil New Uniforms

[Gothamite 24,108]

On 5/1/2020 at 5:31 AM, Meshmaster101 said:

i think that the biggest thing that ties the flying elvis with the rest of the uniforms is the unique number font that the old unis had. now that they've changed it, it kinda just feels like its there by itself.

 

 

Do you associate them just through familiarity? Because aesthetically, there’s not much of a connection between the halting, unbalanced number font and the graceful, swooping logo.

 

[Meshmaster101 128]

yeah like, you cant have one without the other, theyre both iconic parts of one of the NFL's most iconic uniforms of the last decade

[AgentColon2 2,519]

Strange being flying Elvis can now be tied to four different number fonts. Not too many logos out there that can do that.

[Survival79 2,116]

2 hours ago, Meshmaster101 said:

yeah like, you cant have one without the other, theyre both iconic parts of one of the NFL's most iconic uniforms of the last decade

 

[the admiral 28,765]

18 hours ago, the admiral said:

Brutalism is architecture for architects. Lay people correct identify it as hideous. 

 

To my point, 

  

 

A thread where people say brutalism is ugly, and then Mings, an architect, comes in and tells everyone they're wrong, it's great, just ask architects!

 

[Tracy MidGrady 533]

There's nothing inconic about the Patriots uniforms, it was an all time great run but nothing about the look was great.

[Gothamite 24,108]

Agreed.  I think the Patriots’ prior uniforms are about as in-iconic as any uniform worn by any NFL dynasty.  They’re just kind of... there.

[BBTV 20,151]

Being Iconic has nothing to do with if they were great or even good.

 

Im not saying they are iconic, but subjective judgements about the look have nothing to do with it.

[Sec19Row53 3,891]

11 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Being Iconic has nothing to do with if they were great or even good.

 

Im not saying they are iconic, but subjective judgements about the look have nothing to do with it.

I don't think they were around long enough to be considered iconic in the NFL. In NO ORDER, other than how they popped into my head: Bears, Packers, Colts, Chiefs, Raiders, Giants.

You could easily convince me that 2 of those three don't belong on the list. You'd have a hard time convincing me that any more could be added.

[colinturner95 3,036]

4 hours ago, Tracy MidGrady said:

There's nothing inconic about the Patriots uniforms, it was an all time great run but nothing about the look was great.

I agree. They were worn during arguably the best run of at the very least a coach/QB combo.

 

But they weren't good uniforms. Nothing about them was good. 

[Ark 2,825]

6 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

A thread where people say brutalism is ugly, and then Mings, an architect, comes in and tells everyone they're wrong, it's great, just ask architects!

 

 

I don't hate brutalism but this is a nonsense appeal to authority. 

 

Brutalist architecture is designed to be strikingly minimalist. It's probably the most polarizing architecture out there, and people aren't wrong for thinking it's ugly... that's just their opinion. 

[oldschoolvikings 17,944]

1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said:

I don't think they were around long enough to be considered iconic in the NFL. In NO ORDER, other than how they popped into my head: Bears, Packers, Colts, Chiefs, Raiders, Giants.

You could easily convince me that 2 of those three don't belong on the list. You'd have a hard time convincing me that any more could be added.

 

Really? I'd have to work hard to get you to add the 49ers?  

[the admiral 28,765]

53 minutes ago, Ark said:

I don't hate brutalism but this is a nonsense appeal to authority.

 

Who, me? The logical fallacy I'm using is an appeal to the masses. Mings was using the appeal to authority. 

[SFGiants58 14,232]

28 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Really? I'd have to work hard to get you to add the 49ers?  

 

Eh, I'm not keen on the logo. Never have been.

 

 

Honestly, the best take on the logo I've seen is @mcrosby's version:

 

 

No drop shadows, a distinctive font, and the white keyline can easily become gold on white backgrounds.

[the admiral 28,765]

I'd knock the Giants and Chiefs off the list, leaving Bears/Packers/Raiders/Colts. The Chiefs are consistent and the Giants are neo-traditional, but neither is *~iconic~*

[oldschoolvikings 17,944]

39 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Eh, I'm not keen on the logo. Never have been.

 

 

Honestly, the best take on the logo I've seen is @mcrosby's version:

 

 

No drop shadows, a distinctive font, and the white keyline can easily become gold on white backgrounds.

 

Well, I don't think the question was "is it a great design?", because if that's the question a lot of those teams he listed get booted, in my opinion.  But if you want to list NFL teams who's uniforms (good, bad, or whatever) can be considered "iconic", the team that wears a uniform that's about 90% of the one the Joe Montana won a truckload of trophies in should probably make the list.

[Sec19Row53 3,891]

1 hour ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Really? I'd have to work hard to get you to add the 49ers?  

I thought about them and the Browns. I thought that their time away from the uniform that I'm considering iconic hurt them enough to not list them. That said, consistency is a :censored: and since I list the Giants, those two ought to make the cut as well.

As for that Niners logo above? No. It's far too cute for its own sake of being cute. It loses legibility in that aspect. A distinctive font is fine, if it's legible.

[Sec19Row53 3,891]

50 minutes ago, the admiral said:

I'd knock the Giants and Chiefs off the list, leaving Bears/Packers/Raiders/Colts. The Chiefs are consistent and the Giants are neo-traditional, but neither is *~iconic~*

Interesting in that the two I was thinking of were the Colts and Giants. The Giants due to changing, and then coming back to these. The Colts due to the shoulder stripes being hashmarks now instead of stripes.

[BBTV 20,151]

54 minutes ago, the admiral said:

I'd knock the Giants and Chiefs off the list, leaving Bears/Packers/Raiders/Colts. The Chiefs are consistent and the Giants are neo-traditional, but neither is *~iconic~*

 

Unfortunately, you'd have to add the Cowboys but that's probably where it ends.  Even 5 in a league of 32 is a little too high for my liking, but I for sure can't knock the Raiders or Packers off, and I think the Bears are right there too.  Iconic isn't a word that's used lightly, and if I had to knock one off, it'd be Colts, but that's tough too.

 

EDIT: regarding "great" vs "iconic", I think the Cowboys look like trash with their 43 shades of gray/blue/green, but I can't dispute that they have arguably one of the top 3 iconic uniforms in the sport (Raiders/Packers).

[Ark 2,825]

2 hours ago, Ark said:

 

I don't hate brutalism but this is a nonsense appeal to authority. 

 

Brutalist architecture is designed to be strikingly minimalist. It's probably the most polarizing architecture out there, and people aren't wrong for thinking it's ugly... that's just their opinion. 

 

Oh, I thought in your last post you meant "lay people incorrectly call it hideous" when you actually meant "lay people are correct to call it hideous". In other words you were being sarcastic and actually hate brutalism.

 

So nevermind. 

 

But in regards to brutalism, I like it but it has its place. Like the Ryugyong Hotel before the outside was finished has this awesome intimidating presence:

 

 

I think brutalist architecture is cool because it is always so striking. It's like the 90s era of sports uniforms. But it will look out of place next to the Taj Mahal or the Eiffel Tower... just like 90s uniforms next to traditional uniforms.