Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[CrookedThumb]

So we all know there have been (and currently are) some BAD football uniforms out there, but this is the first NFL uniform that I can say is just sloppy.  Too many inconsistencies between the jerseys and pants (gradient for one pant, side by side stripes for another).  The patch with the 3-tiered wordmark looks like the designer forgot to zoom out to see the jersey as a whole.  As I stated earlier, white patches and sleeves on an off-white jersey looks like the materials supplier ran out of one of those colors and the Rams decided to say “**** it, no one will notice.”  And that random yellow zigzag stitch bugs the hell out of me.  Yeah, the Browns’ orange stitching sucks, but at least it was used consistently throughout the jerseys.  Did I miss the Nike explanation as to the significance of the zigzag?

 

By the way, I’m not calling “bone.”  That color is “gray cream” to me.

 

EDIT:  2002 Bills is stiff competition for the NFL’s first “sloppy” uniform.

[Eszcz21]

8 hours ago, kw11333 said:

I mean he's not wrong. Chargers jerseys are great, but both teams are still trying to build a brand in LA and look nearly identical with certain jerseys.

 

Chargers need to drop all white and dark uniforms just to be different.

 

No the Chargers don't need to drop :censored:. First off the Chargers have a long history of wearing all white. The rams have done it intermittently throughout their history. I'm getting real sick of the "Chargers need to do this do avoid confusion" bull. They look better and should wear what they want, the Rams are not the overlords of the NFL, they are not even a team 99% of this country gives a about. I will always agree that if anything they should be in San Diego.

[SCL]

6 minutes ago, _J_ said:

So, after sitting on them a day I actually really like the blue jersey, when/if it'll be worn with yellow pants. I'd love for this one to stick around after five or so years, but only as an alt.

 

 

The Dodgers to boot, at least on the road.

The Rams are running a simulation, what if a team only wore color rush unis?

[_DietDrPepper_]

The chargers look developed in San Diego, it's unfortunate that they share blue and yellow but it's in no way their fault, they relocated to LA and LA welcomed them with their colors they've had for 60 years, too bad now you have a problem. 

Then again maybe it's what they get for leaving San Diego to begin with

[tBBP]

A couple years back on these boards, my boy McCarthy @Sport made a statement regarding and relating the optics of his Cincinnati Bengals' uniforms pre-2004, and after, saying in so few words that the pre-2004 look said "we're a football team dressed like tigers", while the post-2004/present look says "we're tigers who play football."  That, in a nutshell, sums up to me this Nikefied-led era of sports and especially football design...

 

 

 

Somewhere along the way, in their great ambitions to keep pushing the envelope, they either forgot, or set to the side, the notion of football uniforms connote of a particular brand image, be it the mascot or city, and doubled down on cosplaying as football players. So that's my primary beef.

 

Now, with that said, I'm all for seeking inspiration from new and as-yet-untapped places--I do it all the time--but there's also a way to execute all that without throwing away the core functional competencies of what make a football (or any other sports) uniform work, especially in the name of "being first" or "inventing trends". That's the great inherent challenge, and the key difference between "art" and "design": "art" is full freedom of expression with no limits, while design is freedom of expression within certain boundaries. So, now that i done got that out my system...
 

 

 

...Yellow is my absolute favorite color, so I'm inclined to be drawn to it even i see it. Unlike many, I also use yellow and white together a lot, despite what the "rule of tincture" might otherwise say about that (that "rule" is more of a guideline, anyway, not set in stone). So, curious as it is, im cool with the jocktag on the back collar of the away uniforms. The way that bone and yellow play together can be interesting--but not on this set. And if "bone" was designed to "look white" from a distance and under certain light, why include actual white on the same uniform in the first place? I don't get that, unless it was just their way of hammering home the point of their new unique color up close (which by the way I actually do like on its own). I have no clue what's supposed to be going on with the sleeves of the away jerseys...maybe somebody else does. That the bone pants include no blue whatsoever is also curious...

 

Moving over to the home set, its...okay for what it is. I'm pretty sure they'll do the blue on blue the majority of their home games, and I'm sure the uniform was designed that way to show off the gradient, so let's talk about that. (Side note: is Nike slick trying to bring back gradients? Between this and the Falcons red jerseys, it makes me wonder. If we see it on a third uniform to come, that'll be the confirmation.) On its own, I don't hate the gradient. But if the blue-base garments are the only places its used (numbers and pants stripe), why even use it at all? Something like that has to be built into the brand in order to work effectively, rather than just "tacked on the back" of it like that hanging patch stuck to the back of that denim jacket somebody posted upthread.

 

And actually... that's my biggest problem with this whole set: its a patchwork quilt of all kinds of ideas stitched together after the fact--none of it is cohesive. Like, none of it. How do you purposely design a two-color primary logo intended to invoke a changing of color (the white "LA" and the yellow horn), make the horn two colors on the secondary logo--and then leave that same primary identifier as one color on the helmet?? Why do gradients on only one set but not the other? What is up with the two totally different sleeve designs from home and away? And as far as those chest patches, I don't mind them or the placement of them in and of themselves...but again, would it have been too easy to just leave the away patch as LOS ANGELES? They had to put RAMS on there too? While we're on that tip, why is that aforementioned jocktag just on the aways but not the homes?  Just a bunch of curious decisions that do not flow together at all. It may not be so egregious from afar, but up close... (and if they're gonna go through the trouble of presenting them up close so we can see all the little details, we'll go through the trouble of dissecting all those little details up close).

 

Finally, the last take I'll contribute on this set is this: it's well-known in the hood that "you don't get high on your own supply". Well, somewhere between the Rams FO's self-aggrandizement of their organization and Nike's own self-promotional tendencies, it seems to me both got way too drunk off their own bottles and, well...this was the result.

[ScubaSteve]

9 hours ago, kimball said:

Eh, I don’t know? New designs the past couple years have softened. If this was 4-5 years ago we’d get numbers that were bold, pointy and loud. Kinda like what Atlanta did. But, the rounded numbers and over designed elements are softer than usually seen.

 

I just don't like the "grrr it's gotta be manly" mentality. Like, are the Ravens not manly because they wear purple and their numbers are more eccentric? The argument just comes off as a little dated to me

[Digby]

17 minutes ago, _DietDrPepper_ said:

The chargers look developed in San Diego, it's unfortunate that they share blue and yellow but it's in no way their fault, they relocated to LA and LA welcomed them with their colors they've had for 60 years, too bad now you have a problem. 

Then again maybe it's what they get for leaving San Diego to begin with

 

I think the issues are that

 

1. Since the Chargers have used every shade of blue, the royal seems to have the least "fan affinity" -- clear preference for the powder and even the Seau navy uniforms. Whereas the Rams fan affinity has always been toward royal, at least in the LA years.

 

2. I'm not sure how much LA HAS welcomed the Chargers, for all the obvious reasons, and moving into the Rams facility changes the branding calculus for sure. It's like if the 70s California Angels moved to Boston for whatever reason...you'd think they'd want to change a couple things.

 

I'm trying to think of parallels -- the Clippers had that awful logo that looked weirdly like the Lakers for all those years. Don't think anyone would consider anything of that era a success. I suppose the Yankees and Mets both have made blue pinstripes key to their brands, but the fandoms there seem geographic enough that it doesn't much matter.

[shaydre1019]

20 hours ago, MDGP said:

So... I zoomed in on the picture of the idea board...

 

INCLUSION/PRIMARY POWER/ DEEPENED WITH MULTI POP

 

AMBITIOUS DREAMERS/ UPWARDS AND OUTWARDS/ DEPTHS OF SKY AND SEA

 

DRIVEN TO SHINE/ FACETED/ CELEBRATION AND RENEWAL

What a bunch of absolute Jackasses.

So will say like i stated earlier, i actually like the set and see where they were going with this, but on the https://ramsnewlook.com/ under "behind the design", they literally have sketches pointing to different elements of the uniforms with literal "Lorem Ipsum..." text.. *giant facepalm*

 

[spartacat_12]

17 hours ago, FinsUp1214 said:

I noticed after their first Instagram reveal post - which from what I saw was getting hammered by fans - the second one that came soon after looked flooded with current and past players commenting with praise and fire emojis (I’m not kidding: Torry Holt posted a row of like, 10). I don’t know if that’s how it works, but it sure looked like the Rams called for some backup.

 

The sad part is a lot of fans fall for this kind of thing. I've seen tons of people on Rams reddit saying stuff like "Cooper Kupp just posted a paragraph on his story about how much he likes the uniforms guys, they can't be that bad".

[bosrs1]

2 hours ago, GrimlockAutobot said:

I keep going back and analyzing this new Rams uniform set over and over again because I'm supposed to hate them. Look at my list of favorite uniforms under my screen name. All traditional. All classic. All iconic. This new Rams set is everything I'm supposed to hate. I review the pictures over and over again telling myself, "Everyone else hates these. Why don't I?"

 

But for various reasons which I've already outlined in this thread, I actually like it. Especially if the Rams use some of the really nice mix and match possibilities. Bone over blue and Bone over yellow would probably look really good IMO.

 

 

You aren’t the only one. I’m reading this thread and just don’t get the hate. Are these perfect, hell no. But are they bad, I don’t see it. They’re the right color, it’s a unified look,... maybe it’s the primary logo being such trash that colored people’s reaction to the uniforms?

[plastictaxicab]

Okay, so I don't HATE these like the general public seems to. I do think they are all over the place, and like the Falcons, I think there were close to a pretty good, modern update. Here's what I would've like to see:

 

What I adjusted:

 

Home:

• Removed chest patch
• Yellow numbers instead of gradient numbers
• Blue/white socks instead of full blue

Away:

• Removed chest patch
• Adjusted shoulders so they are consistent with the home jersey
• Identical to home from the waist down

 

In my opinion, this is all they need for a successful update.

[CreamSoda]

Why can't teams just use block numbers...  

[Ridleylash]

27 minutes ago, ScubaSteve said:

I just don't like the "grrr it's gotta be manly" mentality. Like, are the Ravens not manly because they wear purple and their numbers are more eccentric? The argument just comes off as a little dated to me

To be fair, football is a game all about burly men violently tackling each other to the ground for possession of a small brown ball. That kind of necessitates that, if you're using a known animal for a logo, that it should come off as at the very least tougher-looking than what would be used for a tech company. That's why the "angry animal"-type logo is so common; it's an easy shorthand for the feel of the game. Same applies to a sport like hockey; the physical nature of it naturally lends itself to some more aggressive logos.

 

The problem is the Rams went too far into the wrong direction; they tried to look "trendy" and "hip" like some new mobile tech firm when they should've been focusing on building a lasting brand. That's the reason the Dodgers' identity is so beloved in LA, they don't with perfection.

 

This won't somehow make the Chargers become long-term viable in LA unless the Rams proceed to spend years floundering as the Chargers dominate the league, but it's a rather large egg on one's face to have your tenant come out the other end of a rebrand looking a million times more prestigious than you, the one that team is paying to play in your arena.

[Carolingian Steamroller]

@Buc I agree with a lot of that with a couple of caveats. 
 

1. I don’t think there’s a bright line between art and design. Personally I happen to think Bears/Packers to be an absolute work of art. 
 

2. Indeed if there’s one lesson teams/Nike should take from art is that the medium is everything. A painting isn’t just an image, it’s layers of material on canvas. It has depth and texture to it. It’s the difference between seeing a JPG of a Rothko online and actually viewing it ten inches from your face. It’s seeing brush strokes in a Van Gogh or surrounding yourself in Monet’s water lilies. 
 

We keep seeing these action poses of digitally rendered figures but I never saw photos of past and current players. I didn’t see pictures of Dickerson running through mud or Deacon Jones in a 3 point stance. We don’t even see contemporary players like Goff or Donald. 

[kutztown]

18 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

If the client walks in and says, "That's the one!" that's all the justification that designer needed.

 

Yea, I suppose.  But I'd hope that as a Sr. Designer for one of the largest global companies, you'd have enough common sense to realize that the bone look with conflicting design elements shouldn't have made it past phase 1. 

[_DietDrPepper_]

25 minutes ago, Digby said:

 

I think the issues are that

 

1. Since the Chargers have used every shade of blue, the royal seems to have the least "fan affinity" -- clear preference for the powder and even the Seau navy uniforms. Whereas the Rams fan affinity has always been toward royal, at least in the LA years.

 

2. I'm not sure how much LA HAS welcomed the Chargers, for all the obvious reasons, and moving into the Rams facility changes the branding calculus for sure. It's like if the 70s California Angels moved to Boston for whatever reason...you'd think they'd want to change a couple things.

 

I'm trying to think of parallels -- the Clippers had that awful logo that looked weirdly like the Lakers for all those years. Don't think anyone would consider anything of that era a success. I suppose the Yankees and Mets both have made blue pinstripes key to their brands, but the fandoms there seem geographic enough that it doesn't much matter.

LA as a group of people maybe not but the city itself decided it was a good idea for a team of the same sport of similar colors to play in the same stadium as the teams thats been there since the 50s, they had this coming, you can't be mad now.  Me personally I love the navy look, I even think the current update that is critically loved is mediocre at best, so I agree that the royal was someone they could've dropped, but they've still had it every year they've been in LA, so I wasn't surprised at all to see them keeping it. This isn't the Chargers fault, not completely at least,  they're continuing their brand, it's LA's fault for choosing the Chargers over what was a much better candidate in the Raiders to move to LA. 

[WideRight]

Normally I think that even the most horrible uniforms can be fixed with only 2-3 adjustments, for example:

 

Bad 2010's Buccaneers:  Replace alarm clock numbers with a regular font.  1 change, now tolerable. 

Bad 2010's Browns:  Eliminate "BROWNS" on pants and extend stripes.  Remove "CLEVELAND" from jersey.  2 steps. Now tolerable. 

Bad 2010's Jaguars:  Eliminate 2-tone helmet and go with solid black.  1 change, now tolerable. 

Even the current Falcons:  Remove "ATL",  Resize helmet logo, elminate color-fade alternate uniform.  Tolerable.

 

But these Rams.... That is going to take more than 1-2 changes.   So here goes. 

 

1. I can tolerate the helmets, though I would prefer a darker blue.   So we leave those alone. 

2. Blue Jerseys:  1. Remove the ludicrous and unnecessary chest patch with the idiotic "heartbeat" stitching.

                            2. Replace the gradient numbers and replace with solid yellow. 

                            3. Remove the plastic-looking internal swoops on the numbers. 

                            4. Remove the tag on the back.

3. Blue pants:  Change gradient stripe to a solid yellow stripe, with a thin white stripe (as we see on the yellow pants)

4. Yellow pants:  These are fine as is. 

5. Bone jersey:  1. Stop it.  Bone?  Stop it.  Change bone to white, thus eliminating the weird white sleeve pattern.

                          2. Again, remove the gratuitous chest patch.

                          3. Again, remove the rubbery/plastic arches within the numbers and just have a plain blue number. 

                          4. Change the shoulder stripes to blue with a thin yellow section.

                          5. Remove TV numbers from sleeves.

6. Bone pants;  1. Change to white. 

7.. Socks:    1. Always blue top with white below, never all blue or all bone, all yellow, etc.  Use blue with all variations of the uniform to balance with helmet. 

 

So, only 12 changes needed.  Ugh!!!!

 

 

 

[Ridleylash]

18 minutes ago, _DietDrPepper_ said:

This isn't the Chargers fault, not completely at least, they're continuing their brand, it's LA's fault for choosing the Chargers over what was a much better candidate in the Raiders to move to LA. 

The city didn't "choose" the Chargers to come in. Kroenke chose to let Spanos piggyback on him because he didn't want to share the market with the Raiders, simple as that. LA is a Rams/Raiders town, not a Rams/Chargers town. And with the Raiders getting EVEN CLOSER to their LA fanbase with the move to Vegas? Do not expect them to lose any ground in the LA market. If anything, they may gain ground over the Chargers in LA, since now they'll be a hot destination trip for Angelinos thanks to the NFL schedule being the way it is.

 

The Raiders moving to Vegas might be the worst possible outcome for the Chargers; because that means even more room is going to be squeezed out of the market from them then the already-small amount the Rams afforded them.

[JayMac]

28 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

Why can't teams just use block numbers...  

Even a modified block would suffice. 

[LordBigMad]

38 minutes ago, CreamSoda said:

Why can't teams just use block numbers...  

 

Because that would be boring as all hell? 

 

I know alot of folks here have a big problem with the number font. But I think the font is unique and beautiful in the same ways as the Steelers and Bears are. 

 

Just remove the gradient.