Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[Gothamite]

9 hours ago, BJ Sands said:

Best Chargers uniform. Don’t come at me. 

 

 

Dean Spanos, is that you?  

[JayMac]

11 hours ago, colortv said:

 

Looks more like the uniforms for a Seattle team than sunny Southern California.

If the Seattle NFL team was called the Storm, this would be a perfect look for it.

[WavePunter]

3 hours ago, Ted Cunningham said:

This is the correct answer.

 

While I disagree with Lafarge (the 1961-1965 look is the best look they had up to 1974, and maybe all the way to 1988), I take the point that those uniforms are not the best that they've worn and are over-hyped. Powder blue is a great color, sure. But it's inaccurate, especially for those throwbacks in particular. And with their rebrand in 2007, it just felt so shoe-horned into the overall look. Their current look, regardless of which jersey is primary and what pants they wear or what color the facemasks are, is such a garbled mess of unnecessary detail. Too many strokes on the bolt on the helmet (why? because powder blue had to be in there). Too many strokes on numbers that are too thin. Weird placement of overly-thin bolt/stripes on the shoulders. Unnecessary curve in the pants stripe. It's just overly detailed and muddled. It's almost akin to the fairly common C&C feedback people get on their concepts wherein a logo is too detailed and wouldn't translate well if it was embroidered because the details are too small. The same principle can be applied, to an extent, with the Chargers. I feel like their numbers are hard to read at a distance, and everything having multiple strokes makes everything look slightly faded or "misprinted" (in the same way a label would be printed with multiple colors, but one of the colors wasn't aligned correctly and is therefore offset). I just feel like the Chargers have continued to tinker with their brand since the 1988-2006 look in an effort to 1) try and shoehorn in the powder blue, 2) to modernize its look, and 3) please everyone with hints at just about all of their previous looks. The resulting identity is a watered down mess. And now they're tinkering again by changing the facemask and the home look, while essentially keeping an away look based on an entirely different shade of blue. It just seems so illogical from an aesthetics standpoint.

The current bolts and numbers have the same exact amount of strokes as the uniform from 1988-2007.. so if that previous uniform is the best, then some of the issues you mentioned can't be what makes the current set the worst..

[IceCap]

2 hours ago, WavePunter said:

The current bolts and numbers have the same exact amount of strokes as the uniform from 1988-2007.. so if that previous uniform is the best, then some of the issues you mentioned can't be what makes the current set the worst..

 

 Really? It’s not hard to see how the current look’s weird curved bolt design down the pants and the unnecessary change from over the shoulder to across the sleeve orientations for the bolts could be seen as downgrades.

And the same can be said for the numbers. It’s not pedantic to point out the differences between the previous block number font and the current custom for custom’s sake overly jagged font. 

Come on now. 

 

Anyway to @Ted Cunningham @BJ Sands @Lafarge and @colortv 

The navy vs powder blue debate for the Chargers was one of the first real arguments I ever got into around here. As such I’ll just say this. Chargers fans love the powder blue throwbacks and prefer the now-primary powder blue jerseys to their navy counterparts. That’s been the case in San Diego and it remains the case in LA. 

Of course the Chargers’ powder blues have been so widely popular (not just within the Chargers’ fanbase) that backlash was bound to happen. And it did. And has been, for some time. If you dislike the AFL throwbacks or prefer navy? All the power to you, but it’s a distinctly unpopular opinion. ESPECIALLY among Chargers fans. 

[MDGP]

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

 

 Really? It’s not hard to see how the current look’s weird curved bolt design down the pants and the unnecessary change from over the shoulder to across the sleeve orientations for the bolts could be seen as downgrades.

And the same can be said for the numbers. It’s not pedantic to point out the differences between the previous block number font and the current custom for custom’s sake overly jagged font. 

Come on now. 

 

Anyway to @Ted Cunningham @BJ Sands @Lafarge and @colortv 

The navy vs powder blue debate for the Chargers was one of the first real arguments I ever got into around here. As such I’ll just say this. Chargers fans love the powder blue throwbacks and prefer the now-primary powder blue jerseys to their navy counterparts. That’s been the case in San Diego and it remains the case in LA. 

Of course the Chargers’ powder blues have been so widely popular (not just within the Chargers’ fanbase) that backlash was bound to happen. And it did. And has been, for some time. If you dislike the AFL throwbacks or prefer navy? All the power to you, but it’s a distinctly unpopular opinion. ESPECIALLY among Chargers fans. 

 

I'm not saying I dislike powder blue, I'm just saying those uniforms are sloppily put together and ugly. The shoulder stripe area is massive and gets all pinched in the armpit area. None of the lightning bolts used are consistent with one another, you've the legs with tiny little spikes, the shoulder being fat with massive spikes that meet at a weird point at the top of the shoulders, and then the helmet stripe, which is good. On the helmet you've also got the helmet number in black which matches nothing from the set at all.

 

I like the idea of the uniforms, but the execution is absolutely abysmal.

[IceCap]

10 minutes ago, Lafarge said:

I'm not saying I dislike powder blue, I'm just saying those uniforms are sloppily put together and ugly.

That's the issue I have with some hot takes re: throwbacks or older classic uniforms to be honest. People want to go on about the imperfections or relative tameness and go "these wouldn't fly today," but that's the thing. These uniforms don't exist in a vacuum. And for better or worse? The flaws of a throwback or a classic uniform will always be more excusable than those on newer looks that don't have decades of history and fond memories to fall back on.

 

10 minutes ago, Lafarge said:

The shoulder stripe area is massive and gets all pinched in the armpit area.

I prefer the over the shoulder stripes to the weak sleeve stripes they use now, to be honest The orientation of the current sleeve stripes is one of my major pet peeves with the current uniform. The classic orientation was so much better.

 

10 minutes ago, Lafarge said:

I like the idea of the uniforms, but the execution is absolutely abysmal.

Again, it's a throwback. Even if they ever did adopt it as a full-time look? As a throwback/classic identity it's supposed to reflect the era it was made in. And you know what? Most (not all, but most) of the flaws you pointed out are valid, but I'll still take them over the flaws the current set has. Next to nothing about the current Chargers' set is superior when compared to any of their previous uniforms.

 

If they wanted to take the elements of the AFL throwbacks and make a new uniform out of them? Then yes, some stuff would have to be cleaned up and standardized. And I'm ok with that, provided that they get rid of the stupid tribal bolts pattern on the pants and return to the over the shoulder bolts stripes.

 

[WavePunter]

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

 

 Really? It’s not hard to see how the current look’s weird curved bolt design down the pants and the unnecessary change from over the shoulder to across the sleeve orientations for the bolts could be seen as downgrades.

And the same can be said for the numbers. It’s not pedantic to point out the differences between the previous block number font and the current custom for custom’s sake overly jagged font. 

Come on now. 

 

Anyway to @Ted Cunningham @BJ Sands @Lafarge and @colortv 

The navy vs powder blue debate for the Chargers was one of the first real arguments I ever got into around here. As such I’ll just say this. Chargers fans love the powder blue throwbacks and prefer the now-primary powder blue jerseys to their navy counterparts. That’s been the case in San Diego and it remains the case in LA. 

Of course the Chargers’ powder blues have been so widely popular (not just within the Chargers’ fanbase) that backlash was bound to happen. And it did. And has been, for some time. If you dislike the AFL throwbacks or prefer navy? All the power to you, but it’s a distinctly unpopular opinion. ESPECIALLY among Chargers fans. 

I didn't reference anything you mentioned.. he harped heavily on the number of strokes on the bolt logos and on the numbers.. they are exactly the same on the set he claims is the best and the set he claims is the worst.. if the amount strokes affects the look of the uniform that much, then there's no way these two looks can be so far apart..

Point is, stroke number is what affects these two sets the least imo.. I'd suggest it's many of the other issues you mentioned (as I also mentioned previously)

[jn8]

My take on the old v. new Chargers uniforms debate

 

Number font:

New>old

 

Facemask color:

New>old

 

Shoulder bolts:

New>old

 

Pants:

New<Old

 

Sue me

[Gothamite]

Really bothers me that they put the sleeve bolts on upside-down. 

 

 

Awful. 

[CaliforniaGlowin]

I'd prefer the Chargers have no navy at all.  I love this look.

[Ted Cunningham]

3 hours ago, WavePunter said:

I didn't reference anything you mentioned.. he harped heavily on the number of strokes on the bolt logos and on the numbers.. they are exactly the same on the set he claims is the best and the set he claims is the worst.. if the amount strokes affects the look of the uniform that much, then there's no way these two looks can be so far apart..

Point is, stroke number is what affects these two sets the least imo.. I'd suggest it's many of the other issues you mentioned (as I also mentioned previously)

You know what, you're right, especially looking at it from a strict definition of what a stroke is around an object. On the 1988-2006 set, the numbers (for example) technically go: white numbers, navy stroke, gold stroke. I was thinking of it in terms of the colors present in the design. So the navy wasn't so much a stroke as it was just space between the numbers and the gold stroke. An "offset stroke," so to speak.

 

However, I still think my point is valid. But, I'm going to change my reasoning in light of your correction, @WavePunter. It's the addition of the third color (i.e. powder blue on both the bolts and numbers) on the new uniforms that really muddies the look. (To me, that third color constitutes an extra stroke, but like I said before, that doesn't meet the strict definition of the term). And I'm not saying that all teams with three colors plus white look bad or having three colors plus white automatically disqualifies a uniform. I just don't think the Chargers executed it well at all. The current design felt like one that was made to please everybody, and it falls flat compared to just about all the other uniforms they've worn.

 

If they wanted to keep the current modern feel, they should just use the royal blue color rush uniforms as a template. The colors on the numbers and bolts are all consistent: navy (I think? It might be black) around gold on a white background. I still don't like the current set of numbers, but whatever with that, I suppose. Just make the royal blue powder instead (as the popular choice), and make the pants white (with just the gold bolt outlined in navy/black; no need for the colored background on the pants stripe). Then just make the jerseys on the away set white and keep everything else the same. (I know that means there would be no powder blue on the away set, but that's the direction they're going in anyway, as I understand it: the away set is still the one they've worn from 2007-2018; pretty navy-heavy.) The consistency would save that look.

[WavePunter]

16 minutes ago, Ted Cunningham said:

You know what, you're right, especially looking at it from a strict definition of what a stroke is around an object. On the 1988-2006 set, the numbers (for example) technically go: white numbers, navy stroke, gold stroke. I was thinking of it in terms of the colors present in the design. So the navy wasn't so much a stroke as it was just space between the numbers and the gold stroke. An "offset stroke," so to speak.

 

However, I still think my point is valid. But, I'm going to change my reasoning in light of your correction, @WavePunter. It's the addition of the third color (i.e. powder blue on both the bolts and numbers) on the new uniforms that really muddies the look. (To me, that third color constitutes an extra stroke, but like I said before, that doesn't meet the strict definition of the term). And I'm not saying that all teams with three colors plus white look bad or having three colors plus white automatically disqualifies a uniform. I just don't think the Chargers executed it well at all. The current design felt like one that was made to please everybody, and it falls flat compared to just about all the other uniforms they've worn.

 

If they wanted to keep the current modern feel, they should just use the royal blue color rush uniforms as a template. The colors on the numbers and bolts are all consistent: navy (I think? It might be black) around gold on a white background. I still don't like the current set of numbers, but whatever with that, I suppose. Just make the royal blue powder instead (as the popular choice), and make the pants white (with just the gold bolt outlined in navy/black; no need for the colored background on the pants stripe). Then just make the jerseys on the away set white and keep everything else the same. (I know that means there would be no powder blue on the away set, but that's the direction they're going in anyway, as I understand it: the away set is still the one they've worn from 2007-2018; pretty navy-heavy.) The consistency would save that look.

I don't disagree with this, although the solution offered earlier about flipping the navy/powder strokes would help..

I also think the font hurts them additionally (both in terms of being a crappy font, as well as not supporting the additional stroke very well)..

And, my top two issues with this set:

Fix the sleeve bolts by making them shoulder bolts again

And figure out how to handle the outer stroke/background issue with the bolts for consistency across all uniforms (something the 90's set got right)

[colortv]

Frankly I would be surprised if the Chargers DIDN'T have a new uniform design when the new stadium opens.

 

New stadium and your co-tenant is getting new uniforms themselves? Makes too much sense.

[colortv]

7 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

 

 Really? It’s not hard to see how the current look’s weird curved bolt design down the pants and the unnecessary change from over the shoulder to across the sleeve orientations for the bolts could be seen as downgrades.

And the same can be said for the numbers. It’s not pedantic to point out the differences between the previous block number font and the current custom for custom’s sake overly jagged font. 

Come on now. 

 

Anyway to @Ted Cunningham @BJ Sands @Lafarge and @colortv 

The navy vs powder blue debate for the Chargers was one of the first real arguments I ever got into around here. As such I’ll just say this. Chargers fans love the powder blue throwbacks and prefer the now-primary powder blue jerseys to their navy counterparts. That’s been the case in San Diego and it remains the case in LA. 

Of course the Chargers’ powder blues have been so widely popular (not just within the Chargers’ fanbase) that backlash was bound to happen. And it did. And has been, for some time. If you dislike the AFL throwbacks or prefer navy? All the power to you, but it’s a distinctly unpopular opinion. ESPECIALLY among Chargers fans. 

 

I prefer the powders..

[colortv]

 

[KGeeX5]

1 hour ago, colortv said:

Frankly I would be surprised if the Chargers DIDN'T have a new uniform design when the new stadium opens.

 

New stadium and your co-tenant is getting new uniforms themselves? Makes too much sense.

 

Yeah, I'm preeeetty sure that's their plan.

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, colortv said:

Frankly I would be surprised if the Chargers DIDN'T have a new uniform design when the new stadium opens.

 

New stadium and your co-tenant is getting new uniforms themselves? Makes too much sense.

 

More like “landlord”, but the point remains.  They’ll need to stay relevant. 

[Ben in LA]

7 hours ago, colortv said:

 

I don’t hate this one bit

[The Easter Beagle]

Personally, I hate the powder blue uniforms. They say "I'm a baby's blanket" all over.

[IceCap]

On 4/17/2019 at 8:00 AM, Gothamite said:

 

I don’t think we can read that into it.  Although I can totally see the Rams as Don Draper.

Let's fully realize the concept