Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[lbj273]

Isn't the only thing stopping the Rams from changing is that they want the new unis to coincide with the new stadium?

 

[Gothamite]

7 hours ago, lbj273 said:

Isn't the only thing stopping the Rams from changing is that they want the new unis to coincide with the new stadium?

 

Yes.  

 

That and their stated desire to work, or at least consult, with the fans in LA. 

[LakeShow24]

 

Sunday's game. Ohhhhhhhhhh Yeaaaaaaaaaah.

[upperV03]

21 minutes ago, LakeShow24 said:

 

Sunday's game. Ohhhhhhhhhh Yeaaaaaaaaaah.

So much better now that the jersey has the full collar again.

[ZapRowsdower8]

When (if) they revert to this look full-time when they move into the new stadium they better make the helmet blue match the jersey. Only thing that has been holding this look back from my number 1 spot.

[dbofox]

13 hours ago, LakeShow24 said:

 

Sunday's game. Ohhhhhhhhhh Yeaaaaaaaaaah.

Couldn't the just keep those helmet full time now? Sure it'd be mis-matched golds but would be better than white horns with white facemask.

[upperV03]

2 minutes ago, dbofox said:

Couldn't the just keep those helmet full time now? Sure it'd be mis-matched golds but would be better than white horns with white facemask.

That’d be even more awful than what they’re already doing...

[Red Wolf]

10 minutes ago, upperV03 said:

That’d be even more awful than what they’re already doing...

After the Cowboys game, the Rams may as well just randomize every uniform element like I used to do when I'd use Oregon on NCAA. It would be a trainwreck, but it already is. 

[colortv]

So I think the Chargers will do a minor rebrand when the new stadium opens and go full powder blue, maybe even sooner if they continue to struggle.

 

The question is, will they also change the logo(while keeping the helmets the same), and if so should they go for something like this:

 

 

This:

 

 

 

Or a combination of the two?

[IceCap]

Why do people keep trotting that LA logo out? It’s not official. It’s a fan creation, which means it will never get used by the team. 

And after the team was roasted for the LA logo they did trot out? They’re probably going to stear clear of LA monogram/lightning bolt combinations for the foreseeable future. 

 

If the Chargers do change things up with their logo? It’ll probably be to adopt the old LA version of the horse/shield logo in some full-time capacity. 

 

A switch to powder blue would be ideal, but it would have to be more than simply going with the current alternate full-time. 

The current uniform- from the forced inclusion of navy to the custom-for-the-sake-of-custum number font to the backwards and wavy lightning bolts to the wrongly-placed sleeve bolts- is the worst the team has every had. 

 

So so change to powder blue would require a redesign to actually look good. Preferably one closer to the AFL throwbacks. 

 

 

 

On 2017-10-02 at 2:49 PM, colortv said:

Absolutely it is "A" big part of the problem.

I’m with Gothamite here. 

Dress this team up with any name you want. LA wouldn’t want it regardless. The “Chargers” branding isn’t the problem.

Hell, I’d say the losing isn’t even the problem. Plenty of teams suck but are met with casual indifference at worst in their home market.

 

The problem is that LA specifically didn’t want *this* team. When the LA talk was picking up? Polls consistently showed that LA fans wanted the Rams above all else. Raiders were a respectable #2, and the Chargers were a distant #3.

 

That’s the problem. The Chargers moved to LA against the expressed interests of the city’s fans (and the League, as it turned out). Dressing them up as the LA Aztecs or whatever wouldn’t change how the city feels about this team and how they moved. 

[The_Admiral]

21 minutes ago, colortv said:

 

 

 

 

Los Angeles [INDEPENDENT] Football Team Logo

[Ark]

10 hours ago, ZapRowsdower8 said:

When (if) they revert to this look full-time when they move into the new stadium they better make the helmet blue match the jersey. Only thing that has been holding this look back from my number 1 spot.

 

The helmet has always been darker

 

 

 

[colortv]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

Why do people keep trotting that LA logo out? It’s not official. It’s a fan creation, which means it will never get used by the team. 

And after the team was roasted for the LA logo they did trot out? They’re probably going to stear clear of LA monogram/lightning bolt combinations for the foreseeable future. 

 

If the Chargers do change things up with their logo? It’ll probably be to adopt the old LA version of the horse/shield logo in some full-time capacity. 

 

A switch to powder blue would be ideal, but it would have to be more than simply going with the current alternate full-time. 

The current uniform- from the forced inclusion of navy to the custom-for-the-sake-of-custum number font to the backwards and wavy lightning bolts to the wrongly-placed sleeve bolts- is the worst the team has every had. 

 

So so change to powder blue would require a redesign to actually look good. Preferably one closer to the AFL throwbacks. 

 

 

 

I’m with Gothamite here. 

Dress this team up with any name you want. LA wouldn’t want it regardless. The “Chargers” branding isn’t the problem.

Hell, I’d say the losing isn’t even the problem. Plenty of teams suck but are met with casual indifference at worst in their home market.

 

The problem is that LA specifically didn’t want *this* team. When the LA talk was picking up? Polls consistently showed that LA fans wanted the Rams above all else. Raiders were a respectable #2, and the Chargers were a distant #3.

 

That’s the problem. The Chargers moved to LA against the expressed interests of the city’s fans (and the League, as it turned out). Dressing them up as the LA Aztecs or whatever wouldn’t change how the city feels about this team and how they moved. 

 

That LA logo is just for reference of a direction they COULD go.

 

Any concerns of the horse being too close for comfort to the Broncos though?

[Chawls]

19 hours ago, LakeShow24 said:

 

Sunday's game. Ohhhhhhhhhh Yeaaaaaaaaaah.

 

 So are we OK with the helmet color not matching the jerseys? 

[colortv]

10 minutes ago, Chawls said:

 

 So are we OK with the helmet color not matching the jerseys? 

 

It's a throwback so whatever....but otherwise no, no I am not.

[IceCap]

30 minutes ago, colortv said:

 Any concerns of the horse being too close for comfort to the Broncos though?

That’s the shield horse’s big problem, It’s a shield (Raiders) and a horse (Broncos). It’s why I’ve never liked the idea of it as the primary logo. The LA version of it could work in an alternate capacity though.

 

30 minutes ago, colortv said:

That LA logo is just for reference of a direction they COULD go.

 

I get ya, but I think the team considers the LA logo they debuted when they moved their attempt to go in that direction, and it became the butt of jokes across Twitter for two days. 

 

It’s a shame too, because that logo was pretty awesome. They probably could have avoided the mess in the first place if they has debuted it in the powder blue and gold scheme. It was debuting it in the navy and white scheme that drew Lightning/Dodgers comparisons and got the joke train going.

[Brian in Boston]

San Diego Bolts has a nice ring to it

 

"Bolts" would be redundant with the Chargers still in the league, unfortunately. I'd suggest bringing back the San Diego Conquistadors name (Q's for short, of course).

Personally, I'm of the opinion that a new San Diego-based NFL franchise should be branded as the San Diego Destroyers. It obviously ties into the United States Navy's importance to the economy, history, and identity of the region. Also, the military facility that is now known as Naval Base San Diego was originally established in 1922 as U.S. Destroyer Base, San Diego. Further, Naval Base San Diego is currently home to 15 destroyers, the largest concentration of any one type of vessel at the base. Finally, the name speaks to strength, aggression, and an attacking mindset - all traits that are linked to the sport of football.     

[Ray Lankford]

7 minutes ago, Brian in Boston said:

Personally, I'm of the opinion that a new San Diego-based NFL franchise should be branded as the San Diego Destroyers. It obviously ties into the United States Navy's importance to the economy, history, and identity of the region. Also, the military facility that is now known as Naval Base San Diego was originally established in 1922 as U.S. Destroyer Base, San Diego. Further, Naval Base San Diego is currently home to 15 destroyers, the largest concentration of any one type of vessel at the base. Finally, the name speaks to strength, aggression, and an attacking mindset - all traits that are linked to the sport of football.     

 

 

I like the idea of a Navy theme but "Destroyers" sounds a little XFL.

[Discrim]

It apparently took eons (not counting that ugly shade Ole Miss and the Broncos used to use), but the Giants found a way...no reason the Rams couldn't use whatever be paint job NYG uses if their overhaul goes royal/gold.

[aawagner011]

47 minutes ago, Discrimihater said:

It apparently took eons (not counting that ugly shade Ole Miss and the Broncos used to use), but the Giants found a way...no reason the Rams couldn't use whatever be paint job NYG uses if their overhaul goes royal/gold.

I think that is the best solution. The Rams helmet has always been darker than the jersey for this throwback set, and it would look very odd to update it to a royal blue helmet. The Giants paint finish does a great job of reflecting different shades of blue, so in some light it reflects bright royal and in some light it appears dark navy. Might be the best of both worlds to satisfy the historical aspect but also color match it better.