Jump to content

Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion


OnWis97

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 12k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 1/24/2016 at 0:01 AM, Gothamite said:

The league is embracing color again because fashion is embracing color again.  People aren't afraid of bright colors.  That's a very good thing, and it makes the Rams in gold a possible, if not likely, proposition. 

'Bout time that people started embracing color again. I grew up in the brightly-hued world of the '80s and '90s, only to see it replaced by black and navy and forest green as I came of age. The early aughts had some truly awful, dark, drab uniforms (think Bills, formerly so colorful, or the Pats' switch to navy, which unfortunately coincided with the beginning of their most successful era). I've been glad, little by little, to see that silly trend slip away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rams and Patriots both darkened their color schemes in 2000. I think the Bills made the change around 2002, right? Prior to that, you had the Jets and Eagles moving away from kelly green. Was really just a late 90s/early 00s trend that stuck around much longer than I would have expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Quillz said:

Rams and Patriots both darkened their color schemes in 2000. I think the Bills made the change around 2002, right? Prior to that, you had the Jets and Eagles moving away from kelly green. Was really just a late 90s/early 00s trend that stuck around much longer than I would have expected.

I can see what you mean. It was a big trend from 1996-2002. It just hasn't totally gone away. 

 

Now, talking strictly NFL:

 

Eagles and 49ers (1996), Buccaneers and Broncos (1997), Jets (1998), Rams and Patriots (2000), Bills (2002) all darkened their primary colors. The Dolphins, Giants and Seahawks also changed in that time frame, but neither really darkened their main shade (both just added unnecessary piping). Then Falcons and Cardinals and Vikings all made changes, but neither really got darker or lighter color-wise. You also had the Jaguars changing their first color from teal to black, and at some point in time the Jets darkened their shade of green even more, and the Packers likewise darkened theirs (the Jets and Packers currently share the same shade of green, at least officially). 

 

The earliest I can remember of a team lightening its color scheme is the Chargers in 2007, but that was just adding a (darker) version of a color from their past as a tertiary. The 49ers followed the next year, but again, it was throwback-related. Then the Bills lightened up (retro-inspired again), and the Vikings got Nike-fied, which lightened their purple somewhat. Even the Dolphins got in on the act in 2013, although it didn't make them look much better if any. 

 

Lightening colors won't automatically make a team look good (see Dolphins and Buccaneers of late). It is an encouraging trend to see, though. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then, so we're bound to see a good lightening change sooner or later.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, in most cases, most of those teams could just go back to their older, brighter colors and be fine. I always felt the Patriots logo looked better in the brighter shades of red, white and blue, as opposed to the red, blue and silver that they have at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Quillz said:

Really, in most cases, most of those teams could just go back to their older, brighter colors and be fine. I always felt the Patriots logo looked better in the brighter shades of red, white and blue, as opposed to the red, blue and silver that they have at the moment.

I may be in the minority with this, but I think the Broncos made themselves look so much better in 2012 by just switching to orange as their primary home instead of blue. They didn't even switch back to their old colors, they just emphasized the brighter of their current ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they both intended to keep them forever, then yes.  

 

But I've been saying on the other thread that I don't think the Chargers' branding is in any way distinctive enough to set themselves apart in the marketplace.  They would be a bad partner for the Rams.  With the Raiders, you'd have "established establishment team vs. scrappy, unlovable outsiders". But the Chargers?  "We're the not-Rams!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

If they're really being up front about no changes until the new stadium, they can't do that.

 

The gold pants haven't existed since the swoosh took over.

 

They do exist. I saw a picture of them from the Nike reveal back in 2012. They're more khaki looking now and I assume that's why they haven't worn them since the Nike switch.

bSLCtu2.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bomba Tomba said:

Brighten the blue, but not the gold? Like royal and Vegas.

Vegas gold won't fly in LA. Before they relocated to St. Louis, 49ers vs Rams was one of the league biggest rivalries (LA vs SF). Gold being one of the Niners colors, won't go over well with those long time LA Ram fans once they change the uniforms. Navy and gold should only be temporary in LA.

Hotter Than July > Thriller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MCM0313 said:

I can see what you mean. It was a big trend from 1996-2002. It just hasn't totally gone away. 

 

Now, talking strictly NFL:

 

Eagles and 49ers (1996), Buccaneers and Broncos (1997), Jets (1998), Rams and Patriots (2000), Bills (2002) all darkened their primary colors. The Dolphins, Giants and Seahawks also changed in that time frame, but neither really darkened their main shade (both just added unnecessary piping). Then Falcons and Cardinals and Vikings all made changes, but neither really got darker or lighter color-wise. You also had the Jaguars changing their first color from teal to black, and at some point in time the Jets darkened their shade of green even more, and the Packers likewise darkened theirs (the Jets and Packers currently share the same shade of green, at least officially). 

 

The earliest I can remember of a team lightening its color scheme is the Chargers in 2007, but that was just adding a (darker) version of a color from their past as a tertiary. The 49ers followed the next year, but again, it was throwback-related. Then the Bills lightened up (retro-inspired again), and the Vikings got Nike-fied, which lightened their purple somewhat. Even the Dolphins got in on the act in 2013, although it didn't make them look much better if any. 

 

Lightening colors won't automatically make a team look good (see Dolphins and Buccaneers of late). It is an encouraging trend to see, though. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then, so we're bound to see a good lightening change sooner or later.

 

 

The dolphins darkened their scheme a bit, at least with the addition of the navy (although it felt like the aqua got a bit darker as well), but they never had any piping.... And if I'm not mistaken, the chargers actually went to a lighter powder blue than their old one.. Their original powder blue was similar to what Ucla wears, more of a dusty royal (kinda like ole miss's light blue helmets), but their current shade is slightly brighter and lighter (almost a mix of the titans and Panthers blues).. But I agree that the trend was bad.. The jets was unnecessary - could've gone throwback with kelly.. Eagles was good for what it was, although I've long suggested that a recolor of their current look with kelly would be great.. Bills was uglier than a monkey's  armpit.. Buccaneers and 49ers were about the only two who really got it right, although the Broncos modernization needed a darker blue to work.. I think the trend was as much modernizing as it was just darkening, but teams seemed to think darkening was a way to do it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With discussions of the Chargers joining the Rams in LA the Raiders are reportedly interested in San Diego. IF that is the case I think the Raiders should be known as the "California Raiders". That would be there third home city in California and someone in the state should adopt that moniker. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 4_tattoos said:

Vegas gold won't fly in LA. Before they relocated to St. Louis, 49ers vs Rams was one of the league biggest rivalries (LA vs SF). Gold being one of the Niners colors, won't go over well with those long time LA Ram fans once they change the uniforms. Navy and gold should only be temporary in LA.

 

Honestly it really won't matter long term what colors they go with. If they stick with vegas gold nobody will care except for the small minority of hardcore fans that want royal/yellow for nostalgia purposes. If you look at most of the press photos the fans are mostly 40+ years old and their kids who were likely made to attend against their will. People forget that LA has been a nfl city without a team and the pecking order is: The transplants' home team (giants/jets, pats, stillers, bears etc), the raiders then the rams. The nostalgia plays well for the press but the average Angeleno has forgot about them after Dickerson left and nobody cares about a 9ers rivalry. Games are gonna be 50% visitor fans just like SD has been for the last 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dirwuf said:

Are the current Rams and Chargers color schemes too similar to coexist in the same city?

As they are now, I think so. But the Rams could emphasize yellow over blue, and the Chargers could promote powder blue over their other colors, and it would work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ltjets21 said:

With discussions of the Chargers joining the Rams in LA the Raiders are reportedly interested in San Diego. IF that is the case I think the Raiders should be known as the "California Raiders". That would be there third home city in California and someone in the state should adopt that moniker. 

I disagree. I've stated before, in regards to baseball, I'm not a fan of region-based names when there are clearly other rival teams existing. I can accept something like "New England Patriots," since there is no other pro NFL team in that particular region, but "California Raiders?" When you've got the Chargers, Rams, and 49ers all upstate? It wouldn't work. It's the same reason I'm not a fan of "Golden State Warriors" or the former "California Angels." (Though I can excuse the former because they were California's only AL team until the A's moved in).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, mbannon92 said:

 

Because they have red stripes on the helmet and pants, red and white road jerseys, and grey pants. We're talking about the Rams adopting a solely blue and white color scheme, the same as the Colts

 

That's why it should a blue and yellow color scheme, with no white except for the away jersey.

rams3_zps8ezugnuj.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, ltjets21 said:

With discussions of the Chargers joining the Rams in LA the Raiders are reportedly interested in San Diego. IF that is the case I think the Raiders should be known as the "California Raiders". That would be there third home city in California and someone in the state should adopt that moniker. 

 

This would never fly with the NFL -- but, I could see it working with the Raiders. Why not split games among LA, San Diego and Oakland (or Santa Clara). Four games in San Diego, 2-3 in Santa Clara and 1-2 in LA (when they play the Chargers and/or Rams). Then stick with San Diego for the playoffs. 

 

I like the idea, but like I said -- never going to happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.