Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[Gothamite]

No, it’s not.  It’s really not, any more than having two teams in the division with navy helmets was. 

[BBTV]

4 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Nah, let the Chargers bore everyone with their navy alternates.  The Rams are great with brighter shades. 

 

 

 

I can't imagine a need for 3/4-length sleeves for any football jersey.  

[dont care]

25 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

I can't imagine a need for 3/4-length sleeves for any football jersey.  

Don’t say that too loudly, the old bah humbugs will try to tell you that the tight fitting jerseys of today are just to look cool, and that the players back in the day had no problems playing with sleeves 

[The_Admiral]

3 hours ago, Gothamite said:

No, it’s not.  It’s really not, any more than having two teams in the division with navy helmets was. 

I think it is in the sense that the Chargers' identity is almost completely built around "charges of electricity" and has been for, oh, at least 40 years now. Lightning bolts on the helmet, on the sleeves, on the pants, and to an extent in the wordmark. So having a primary logo that has a charge of electricity but also a charging horse doesn't fit: there's electricity everywhere else, but horses nowhere else. It's the Tampa Bay Rays dilemma all over again, right down to being energy instead of animal but also sort of animal. So having a horse as a half-measure to account for the admitted standalone weakness of the helmet bolt feels like an intrusion when you have the Broncos and Colts firmly rooted in their different horse brands. Does that make any more sense?

[Gothamite]

I understood it before, I just don’t agree.

 

The argument that they’re trying to have it both ways is a good one (though I’m inclined to let the Chargers be grandfathered in after sixty years). The argument that the Broncos and Colts somehow preclude another horse-based identity is not. 

 

The (Devil) Rays comparison is a useful one; I don’t like their attempt to be both rays of light and the underwater creature.   But at the same time, I’ve never believed that the existence of the Marlins doesn’t mean that the Rays can’t also have a fish mascot. 

[SFGiants58]

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

I understood it before, I just don’t agree.

 

The argument that they’re trying to have it both ways is a good one (though I’m inclined to let the Chargers be grandfathered in after sixty years). The argument that the Broncos and Colts somehow preclude another horse-based identity is not. 

 

It's different, as the horse is barely a part of the Chargers' history compared to the lightning bolts. Sure, merging them is fine, but it has to be done in a way that doesn't recall the stylings of the Broncos' logo. It's why the Orioles and Blue Jays render their birds so differently and why the Colts and Broncos use different horse-themed designs. 

 

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

The (Devil) Rays comparison is a useful one; I don’t like their attempt to be both rays of light and the underwater creature.   But at the same time, I’ve never believed that the existence of the Marlins doesn’t mean that the Rays can’t also have a fish mascot. 

 

That's the first I've ever heard of the fish being the issue. The rebranding, AFAIK, was more an attempt by Sternberg to rejuvenate the team after Vince Naimoli screwed the franchise right out of the gate. The whole fish-themed team had such a negative stink that they had to change things up. Of course, the ray patch survived the rebrand, almost as a way to appease fans of the older brand direction. Think "transitional branding," like the Buffalo Sabres' "B-sword" logo or any number of recolored alternate logos. @hockey week called it a "'just kidding' ripcord," in case the new brand proved to be unpopular.

[oldschoolvikings]

11 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

I can't imagine a need for 3/4-length sleeves for any football jersey.  

 

That's nothing... this guy played in July and that's wool flannel...

 

[BBTV]

WTF was wrong with people 100 years ago?  Were men not allowed to expose their elbow because of some silly reason?  

 

I understand technology back then wasn't what it is now, but come on - they could have made short sleeves.  Maybe intelligence wasn't that high back then either.

[oldschoolvikings]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

WTF was wrong with people 100 years ago?  Were men not allowed to expose their elbow because of some silly reason?  

 

I understand technology back then wasn't what it is now, but come on - they could have made short sleeves.  Maybe intelligence wasn't that high back then either.

 

Sure, you could expose your elbow... but only while swimming.

 

[colortv]

5 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

WTF was wrong with people 100 years ago?  Were men not allowed to expose their elbow because of some silly reason?  

 

I understand technology back then wasn't what it is now, but come on - they could have made short sleeves.  Maybe intelligence wasn't that high back then either.

 

Medicine wasn't what it is now, you had to protect yourself from the elements/injury/cuts/infections more.

[colortv]

15 hours ago, the admiral said:

I think it is in the sense that the Chargers' identity is almost completely built around "charges of electricity" and has been for, oh, at least 40 years now. Lightning bolts on the helmet, on the sleeves, on the pants, and to an extent in the wordmark. So having a primary logo that has a charge of electricity but also a charging horse doesn't fit: there's electricity everywhere else, but horses nowhere else. It's the Tampa Bay Rays dilemma all over again, right down to being energy instead of animal but also sort of animal. So having a horse as a half-measure to account for the admitted standalone weakness of the helmet bolt feels like an intrusion when you have the Broncos and Colts firmly rooted in their different horse brands. Does that make any more sense?

 

In a league with a team called the Bears that doesn't have an actual Bear in it's identity other than an alternate logo is it really that much of a problem?

[The_Admiral]

I don't know what that has to do with anything, and the Bears use the secondary heavily in everything but the uniform; it's basically a co-primary.

[Sykotyk]

9 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

WTF was wrong with people 100 years ago?  Were men not allowed to expose their elbow because of some silly reason?  

 

I understand technology back then wasn't what it is now, but come on - they could have made short sleeves.  Maybe intelligence wasn't that high back then either.

Until the 50s, the furthest south a major league team was DC to the east and St. Louis to the west. No California teams. Texas. Florida.

 

Seasons were actually a bit milder 100 years ago and people were just used to being outside. Look at how a lot of old parks had covered grandstands and everybody wore a hat to keep cool from the sun.  Go see the Kentucky Derby to see that tradition taken to extremes. 

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

Until the 50s, the furthest south a major league team was DC to the east and St. Louis to the west. No California teams. Texas. Florida.

 

Seasons were actually a bit milder 100 years ago and people were just used to being outside. Look at how a lot of old parks had covered grandstands and everybody wore a hat to keep cool from the sun.  Go see the Kentucky Derby to see that tradition taken to extremes. 

 

If your point is that it was colder back then, isn't that what sleeved undershirts are for?  Certainly long-sleeved t-shirts or sweats had been invented bythen, and at least would give the players the option of going long or short sleeved.

[MJWalker45]

13 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

If your point is that it was colder back then, isn't that what sleeved undershirts are for?  Certainly long-sleeved t-shirts or sweats had been invented bythen, and at least would give the players the option of going long or short sleeved.

It was a style issue, just like football, soccer and hockey. Over time each changed their look based on the technology available. Baseball was very much a part of the Victorian era in it's beginnings which promoted restraint in public. That included dress which meant covering up as much as possible when one was out in public, thus the very long sleeves.

[Cosmic]

Wool is also moisture-wicking. It probably wasn't like wearing a volcano like we assume today, especially considering the limited fabrics available back then.

[guest23]

59 minutes ago, Cosmic said:

Wool is also moisture-wicking. It probably wasn't like wearing a volcano like we assume today, especially considering the limited fabrics available back then.

 

No it was pretty bad. There's a reason why mens suits are made of non wool fabrics for summer wear.

[Gothamite]

That’s a good point.  Wool was in many cases the best material available at the time for athletes.  Even reproductions; I’ve worn my Ebbets Field Flannels jerseys well into the summer. 

[McGlinchey23]

23 hours ago, Sykotyk said:

Seasons were actually a bit milder 100 years ago

By what, 1 degree? Im talking out of my ass here, but I doubt it was a noticable difference. Summer in New York (or Philly, DC., etc) back then was still summer, and they had their dog days. 

 

[8BW14]

8 hours ago, Cosmic said:

Wool is also moisture-wicking. It probably wasn't like wearing a volcano like we assume today, especially considering the limited fabrics available back then.

This is true. I have some wool hunting/hiking clothes and they are both awesome insulation and just as, if not more, breathable/moisture wicking than any of the synthetic athletic/outdoor clothes I own. Wool socks and underwear are underrated. Wool doesn’t hold onto odor either, like many synthetic fabrics. It’s really pretty cool stuff, no pun intended.