OnWis97

Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

No, it leaves Jacksonville out, which might not be a bad idea. Imagine adding Arizona and Carolina in 1995, with the later Cleveland and Houston expansions. 

i'm just going to have to disagree with you as matter of principle that it's a bad idea, But indeed in that scenario Jax is out city out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, colortv said:

 

The helmet on the right looks good to me, what's wrong with it?

I think the problem here is that most people believes it would not be a good Rams look having the segmented horn on the helmet.

 

However, from what I’ve seen with how the discussion has gone regarding the Rams identity, I’m not sure there’s a really solid argument that the Rams going complete throwback (as most people wanted) was the way to go. The LA Rams are in need of a complete washing away of any reminiscence of the St. Louis brand. So a complete change in the way they go about the uniforms and logos was a necessity in the executives eyes. And they did just that. 
 

So is it a great helmet? It’s not amazing.

Is it a new “twist” on an old classic Rams helmet that would help distinguish them from St. Louis even more? It’s definitely a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, FinsUp1214 said:


I’m confused as well, but I think that’s exactly what he’s referring to. Given the recent comeback use of it by the team in some applications (merchandise, Super Bowl LII endzone, etc), I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s thinking of the helmet logo. Even if a lot of sideline gear and other throwback applications used the old ram head, as well.

 

If that’s what he’s referring to, I don’t know that I’d call the helmet logo iconic like he does given that other teams have done the same thing. The aforementioned Browns have done it and still do it, but the Bengals and Chargers also had helmet logos too that spawned out of the 80’s-90’s like the Rams’ had. The Rams helmet is iconic, yes, but when I think of the helmet logo, each of the 80’s-90’s teams who did the same thing at the same time (and also have rather iconic helmets in their own right) come to mind as well and I don’t think that makes for the logo itself being iconic. 

 

 

I think a lot of people don't know the difference between "logo" and "sticker on the helmet".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, colortv said:

5e7bb80714f18f20d429de8d?width=600&forma

So a crescent moon and a stripe. 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Digby said:

 

Oh no, don't tell me that simpleton Boomer memes have infiltrated the world of sports design.

 

I've tried posting that three times but Facebook keeps deleting it. Like and share!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FlyingBuckeye7 said:

For everyone who is saying the Chargers are not drawing fans in Los Angeles, where do you suppose the Chargers should go instead? Should they return to San Diego? Or Should they relocate somewhere completely different?

 

Edit: I believe the move to LA was purely a business move. It was never about the game or the fans. The team could not get San Diego to build them a new stadium so they decided to just piggyback on the Rams. They didn’t have to fight for their own stadium. They don’t have to worry about the upkeep of the stadium either. Is this the best decision for the fans? No. Is this the best decision for the team? We will see in the future.

 

Mexico City?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, colortv said:

1. A lot of owners supposedly still held grudges against Al Davis and his shenanigans over the years.

 

2. No one wanted Mark Davis in charge of the leagues return to LA.

 

3. Probably the biggest reason, the Raiders fanbase.

Counterpoints.

1. Al is dead, let it go.

 

2. Stan Kroenke would be in charge of the league's return to LA, Mark Davis would just be his tenant (under an ideal scenario).

 

3. The Raiders' fanbase may be an acquired taste, but at least it exists. Unlike the Chargers' fanbase in LA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mingjai said:

 

Mexico City?

As much as people always like to throw in Mexico City as a relocation destination, I don’t think the NFL would ever actually expand there. I think we would see a team in Canada before they ever consider Mexico City

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, duxrcool048 said:

This is an interesting picture lol!

 

spacer.png

Because it's 2020 now, and I just don't trust them enough that they won't mess with tradition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bruhammydude said:

Because it's 2020 now, and I just don't trust them enough that they won't mess with tradition

This is exactly why they WILL do this. I sincerely think they want to start a new tradition in this new stadium. The old tradition died in St. Louis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, colortv said:

8623552_2201.jpg

 

 

 that settles it - I'm praying for a Barcelona Dragons-esque design for the new Rams uniforms. Logo all over the front, with little numbers up in the shoulder area.  You want to talk about iconic?  Nobody will care about horns not being on the sleeves when they're all over the whole front.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, MDGP said:

They spent millions on this redesign, why would they just bail on it before getting back at least some of their money?

 

3 hours ago, WSU151 said:

And it might be better than we think (though canzman wasn't a fan of the jerseys). 

 

3 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

Seriously.  They're "tone-deaf" for moving forward with their 4 year plan, instead of buckling under to the loud reactionary internet rabble?  You say "tone-deaf" I say "not impulsive and cowardly."

 

 

These are all correct.  Plus, they likely couldn't switch even if they really wanted to.  It's way late in the process, and they're just setting themselves up for even more ridicule if they just punted for another two years and then missed the mark again.  You can't put up designs way in advance and have fans vote on it - just doesn't work that way, and even if you did, people will find reasons to criticize any and all options.

 

Someone has a vision for how the brand will come together and what they want to do with it over the next few years - they should get a chance to see it through, and if it sucks, then just kill them and hire someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, FlyingBuckeye7 said:

As much as people always like to throw in Mexico City as a relocation destination, I don’t think the NFL would ever actually expand there. I think we would see a team in Canada before they ever consider Mexico City

 

I've always assumed the Bills would have dibs on any expansion to Canada.

 

Besides the Jaguars, who have a fitting nickname, any of the prior LA teams would have been a logical choice for expansion to Mexico City just due to familiarity from proximity. The Raiders probably have the biggest existing fan base there at least among the Raiders, Rams, and Chargers.

 

In the end, we'll probably see expansion to London before we see either Canada or Mexico, which is unfortunate, because I think Mexico is the better first step internationally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, every time I see this thread pick up on hot, and it's just because of the Chargers argument that's been raging for like 3 days now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bruhammydude said:

Man, every time I see this thread pick up on hot, and it's just because of the Chargers argument that's been raging for like 3 days now.

Both teams unveiled their logos and everyone said all there is to say about them. Off topic discussion is going to happen until we see some unis.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IceCap said:

Both teams unveiled their logos and everyone said all there is to say about them. Off topic discussion is going to happen until we see some unis.

 

 

Guess I should've known by now lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mingjai said:

In the end, we'll probably see expansion to London before we see either Canada or Mexico, which is unfortunate, because I think Mexico is the better first step internationally.

Eeeeeeeh, doubtful. They have to know that London would be a scheduling nightmare. And what division would you even put them in? 

 

One of the major hurdles with Canada is, of course, working around the CFL. But I'd say expansion into Canada or Mexico is far more likely to be where the NFL ends up looking then expansion to Europe; it's less of a logistical nightmare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

 

These are all correct.  Plus, they likely couldn't switch even if they really wanted to.  It's way late in the process, and they're just setting themselves up for even more ridicule if they just punted for another two years and then missed the mark again.  You can't put up designs way in advance and have fans vote on it - just doesn't work that way, and even if you did, people will find reasons to criticize any and all options.

 

Someone has a vision for how the brand will come together and what they want to do with it over the next few years - they should get a chance to see it through, and if it sucks, then just kill them and hire someone else.

 

And I think we know by now that the social media effect makes any update look 20 percent worse, by virtue of the loud voices looking for something to exaggerate and dunk on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jws008 said:

Do I understand why the Rams moved back to LA? Of course. Do I also understand that people on all sides behaved poorly? Yes, I do. Am I surprised that Kroenke and the NFL behaved in the way that they did? No, not all at all. Do I understand why the lawsuit was filed? Yes, and clearly the move precipitated the case. And the courts, thus far, are allowing it to go forward.

 

Courts in Missouri are, sure.

 

Interesting that they aren't claiming that the Rams violated the lease with St. Louis, because the Rams didn't.   St. Louis did.  They are claiming that the Rams violated NFL rules, which do not have the force of law and can of course be changed at any time by the league.  I understand why the city fathers, who bungled the entire affair and ended up with egg on their faces, would want to file the lawsuit.  Doesn't make it any less sour grapes, though. 

 

Worth also pointing out that the judges who have let the suit proceed are all up for re-election in the state of Missouri.  If St. Louis really has a claim, let them take it to binding arbitration with a neutral third-party arbiter selected by both parties.  But the city doesn't want that... wonder why? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.