Jump to content

Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion


OnWis97

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, plastictaxicab said:

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:

spacer.png

 

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.

Perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The all-white NFL uni with white socks trend has to stop. 

 

But it's not slowing down so I guess I have to begrudgingly accept it. Why don't we just give every team a white alternate helmet while we're at it?

It could be part of the NFL's new "Frozen Tundra" campaign throughout the month of December. White hats, jackets, sweatshirts on the sideline too. Written in white letters with white logos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, kutztown said:

 

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. 

I'd say that the idea that the away should be a copy of the home isn't necessarily true. But in this case it's a batter look than waht the new away jersey is. Dallas' away jersey, heck the whole away uniform, has nothing in common with the home jersey but they still are good looks that stand up on their own. The away jersey for the Rams does not have that same ability to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

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.

I mean, I agree? That's what I said? The people in charge of this whole thing welcomed the chargers to LA, there shouldn't be any resentment towards the chargers for having a similar brand. The raiders were a better candidate for a second LA franchise, they should've moved down South, not the chargers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bosrs1 said:

 

 

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?


Are they, though? 
 

The colors are close to being right, yes; the blue and yellow are spot on with what they should be. But bone/sand/gray? Why? That isn’t a color the Rams should be touching, no matter how much they try to justify it with “sand...you know sand? Like California sand? Did you know California has beaches?!”

 

And unified? I disagree. The home and road are going in very different directions. The home looks like a true modernization of the classic (which again, for the record, isn’t bad at all), and the road somehow looks like streetwear and a spacesuit rolled into one instead. The elements between the two sets are not consistent; I don’t really have to break down why, it’s plenty obvious what those inconsistencies are. There’s very different vibes, vision, and message between the two sets, which adds to the notion that the Rams haphazardly overthought this entire identity. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ramsjetsthunder said:

So the Rams will change in 5 years. But will the logo have to change with it?

Oh, probably. The logos got absolutely eviscerated on reveal and haven't seemed to have grown beyond "they're not great, but not the worst", there's no way they'll settle for that when the entire point of the rebrand was almost definitely to try and become something like the Dodgers; an icon of the city. You don't get "icon of the city" by being "eh", not in Los Angeles.

 

They'd be foolish to change the jerseys but not the logos that got just as much heat on their backs as the jerseys have, if not more. Say what we will about ATL, they didn't commit to a massive brand overhaul and then had it get completely eviscerated by the press and fanbase. They can phase out the worst problems fairly easily; retire the gradient, mix up the uniform combos to minimize monocolors, then go a different course once they can. At least that'll make them meh, not terrible.

 

The Rams committed whole-hog to this rebrand to tie into the new stadium and expected it to make them a crown jewel of Los Angeles. Instead, it's turned them into the punching bag of pundits because they overthought what should have been a simple process. You can't mix up combos to make a perfect look if your main pair of jerseys have been screwed up for entirely different reasons.

 

They got cute with their design ideas and it blew up spectacularly. And unlike the Falcons, they can't just fix it by patching different looks together because one of the key issues people have is one of the sets they have (the "bone" jersey). You can't patch this hole because nothing fits in it. Unless their last two uniforms are both entirely throwbacks that have basically no hint of the modern branding (which I doubt, it seems more likely at least one is going to be a mono-yellow set cuz max 🔥), they can't exactly salvage the rebrand easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, plastictaxicab said:

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:

spacer.png

 

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.

Those are very nice. Should have been the logical next round of revisions for Nike but they got lazy.

 

The only thing I may add is, if they are intent on using the cut, crescent horn motif, then use that to cut the pant stripe too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, plastictaxicab said:

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.


Well done! This would still have a modern feel while maintaining the overall aesthetic of their classic look. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since there are a few ideas for tweaks being thrown around, I decided to add mine.

 

-Single design across both uniforms (ram horn) to create continuity.

-No weird patches. Rams wordmark moves to chest.

-No bone uniform. Just a blue and white jersey w/ yellow/blue/white pants.

-New number font. Also kept the gradient, but moved it to an outline.

-Tweaked some of the pants striping (blue/white).

-Overall I wanted to shed some of the "designer" look for something more practical.

d9JfFI7.pngzEHGR4w.pngFKcqegF.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Doorman said:

 

This is why I absolutely love how the Chargers and Bucs did their rebrands. They just said ":censored: the excuses, we made it better because you wanted it to be better."

 

Not like this, where the Rams are like "blue represents the sky/sea/history and gold represents the sun native to our city...", cause that's not what fans want.

 

creating something new and just going back to something old isn't the same process. but the Chargers mentioned So-Cal inspiration, hot roders, Carrol Shelby... don't think their process wasn't similar to this. and for the Bucs, im sure there was a lot of meetings and moodboards about where they are, where they want to be, and what does that look like, before deciding to bring back the old unis.

 

23 hours ago, MDGP said:

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

 

v8oisK9.png

INCLUSION/PRIMARY POWER/ DEEPENED WITH MULTI POP

 

9kcqQpv.png

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

 

pEKLtZb.png

DRIVEN TO SHINE/ FACETED/ CELEBRATION AND RENEWAL


What a bunch of absolute Jackasses.

 

you can't just make stuff and say "do you like it?". if thats your process, then you are creating tot he tastes of the final decision makers at NFL and on team side. and if they ask "why did you do that?" you need a reason. there has to be something driving the aesthetics. and there is no single final decision maker, or if there is they will be influenced by other opinions. so you have to get a lot of people aligned and agreeing to something.

 

thats what you're seeing here, they're searching for a concept by starting with words and reflecting them with images. that's the Design process. but those words they're using? "ambitious dreamers", "driven to shine", primary power".... yea, it doesn't really pull from anything having to do with Rams history, too abstractly LA, and even as a new Brand direction, it doesn't really inspire much in terms of visuals. plus, all of that, seems to be the opposite aesthetic/concept of streetwear brands. those are deadpan; there's a lack of meaning. what they're showing here is good process but what they've put into it definitely reflects a disjointed nature of the final product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

creating something new and just going back to something old are completely different processes. but the Chargers mentioned So-Cal inspiration, hot roders, Carrol Shelby... don't think their process wasn't similar to this. and for the Bucs, im sure there was a lot of meetings and moodboards about where they are, where they want to be, and what does that look like, before deciding to bring back the old unis.

 

 

you can't just make stuff and say "do you like it?". if thats your process, then you are creating tot he tastes of the final decision makers at NFL and on team side. and if they ask "why did you do that?" you need a reason. there has to be something driving the aesthetics. and there is no final decision maker, or if there is they will be influced by other opinions. so you have to get a lot of people aligned and agreeing to something.

 

thats what you're seeing here, they're searching for a concept by starting with words and reflecting them with images. that's the Design process. but those words they're using? "ambitious dreamers", "driven to shine", primary power".... yea, it doesn't really pull from anything having to do with Rams history, too abstractly LA, and even as a new Brand direction, it doesn't really inspire much in terms of visuals. plus, all of that, seems to be the opposite aesthetic/concept of streetwear brands. those are deadpan; there's a lack of meaning. what they're showing here is good process but what they've put into it definitely reflects a disjointed nature of the final product.

 

I feel like they're trying to tell me what LA is, when I already know what LA is. They already had the culture and imagery baked in by simply being in LA.

 

Seems to me like they wasted all of that by using contrived gimmicks.

 

Am I off-base with that thinking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ramsker said:

 

I feel like they're trying to tell me what LA is, when I already know what LA is. They already had the culture and imagery baked in by simply being in LA.

 

Seems to me like they wasted all of that by using contrived gimmicks.

 

Am I off-base with that thinking?

No, that seems pretty fair. They searched for a core idea (what is "LA", culturally) but then went and added too many contrived gimmicks when they were being embraced by the city simply for being in the city. Besides, if their idea was "what is LA, culturally", then it's certainly not "high tech company"; that's probably more associated with San Jose. Los Angeles is more of a cultural hub rather than a city on the cutting edge of innovation.

 

They're trying too hard to make themselves the "LOS ANGELES Rams", focusing on the market above all else. Thus why the primary isn't a ram head, but a giant LA; they put too much emphasis on location when it came to branding.

The Dodgers are probably the only team I could really see getting away with having an LA logo be a focal point of the brand, because it's both a baseball aesthetic to have monograms on the cap and because they're the unquestionable biggest act in town when it comes to sports; but even they don't have a simple monogram as their primary logo, but instead use the team name.

 

It's why I revile the Kings' banner logo so much; not only is it rather cramped as a primary logo, it also puts too much emphasis on the "LA" rather then just focusing on the team name aspect (the crown). We all know the Kings play in Los Angeles, the team's been there for over 50 goddamned years at this point; we don't need a giant "LA" to tell us that constantly.

 

Same thing with the Rams; we all know they're in LA now, they have been for a while; what's the point of forcing it as the main part of the brand? Just going to the classic colors with a new ram logo and old-school jerseys would've been a perfect way to make the same "we're embracing LA" point without needing 30 miles of Nikespeak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

you can't just make stuff and say "do you like it?". if thats your process, then you are creating tot he tastes of the final decision makers at NFL and on team side. and if they ask "why did you do that?" you need a reason. there has to be something driving the aesthetics. and there is no single final decision maker, or if there is they will be influenced by other opinions. so you have to get a lot of people aligned and agreeing to something.

 

thats what you're seeing here, they're searching for a concept by starting with words and reflecting them with images. that's the Design process. but those words they're using? "ambitious dreamers", "driven to shine", primary power".... yea, it doesn't really pull from anything having to do with Rams history, too abstractly LA, and even as a new Brand direction, it doesn't really inspire much in terms of visuals. plus, all of that, seems to be the opposite aesthetic/concept of streetwear brands. those are deadpan; there's a lack of meaning. what they're showing here is good process but what they've put into it definitely reflects a disjointed nature of the final product.


Oh, of course I agree with this post 100%.   The general process and taking ideas from the real world is great, but this comes across as full-on free association or one of those “I trained an AI to watch 100 hours of graphic design processes and here’s what it came up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

you can't just make stuff and say "do you like it?". if thats your process, then you are creating tot he tastes of the final decision makers at NFL and on team side. and if they ask "why did you do that?" you need a reason. there has to be something driving the aesthetics. and there is no final decision maker, or if there is they will be influced by other opinions. so you have to get a lot of people aligned and agreeing to something.

 

thats what you're seeing here, they're searching for a concept by starting with words and reflecting them with images. that's the Design process. but those words they're using? "ambitious dreamers", "driven to shine", primary power".... yea, it doesn't really pull from anything having to do with Rams history, too abstractly LA, and even as a new Brand direction, it doesn't really inspire much in terms of visuals. plus, all of that, seems to be the opposite aesthetic/concept of streetwear brands. those are deadpan; there's a lack of meaning. what they're showing here is good process but what they've put into it definitely reflects a disjointed nature of the final product.


Right, the activity of mood boards and this particular process makes sense. We employ a very similar process on the design team I work with as well, so I 100% get what they’re trying to do in terms of process steps and I think most of us here understand that it’s part of the process as well. It’s the content within it though that’s getting roasted here, and you outlined why pretty well; “disjointed” is a pretty great word for it. To me, everything on those mood boards was pretty nonsensical. It’s bad beat poetry. It’s trying to capture a bunch of “essences” that seemed to be forced into relating somehow to each other, varying from the abstract to the just plain cheesy. And granted, we don’t have the whole process in view and maybe some stuff is out of context, but I was unable to come to any sensical conclusion as to what was trying to be honed into out of all that inspiration. It’s all still got to funnel into something, and I don’t think it ever did.

 

The more I think of it, the more I theorize that it was probably in these very steps where the wheels came off the wagon. You see it in the story behind the LA horn, where there was this market-speak about sunshine and waves and SoCal life wrapped up in one single ram horn. It’s a ram horn, why are you trying to write a whole novel about California within a single ram horn? The Rams just flat out went too deep and stayed there, ultimately looking to me like an end result of a process that was over-saturated with excitement and attachment to far too many ideas and abstract inspiration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

No, that seems pretty fair. They searched for a core idea (what is "LA", culturally) but then went and added too many contrived gimmicks when they were being embraced by the city simply for being in the city. Besides, if their idea was "what is LA, culturally", then it's certainly not "high tech company"; that's probably more associated with San Jose. Los Angeles is more of a cultural hub rather than a city on the cutting edge of innovation.

 

They're trying too hard to make themselves the "LOS ANGELES Rams", focusing on the market above all else. Thus why the primary isn't a ram head, but a giant LA; they put too much emphasis on location when it came to branding.

The Dodgers are probably the only team I could really see getting away with having an LA logo be a focal point of the brand, because it's both a baseball aesthetic to have monograms on the cap and because they're the unquestionable biggest act in town when it comes to sports; but even they don't have a simple monogram as their primary logo, but instead use the team name.

 

It's why I revile the Kings' banner logo so much; not only is it rather cramped as a primary logo, it also puts too much emphasis on the "LA" rather then just focusing on the team name aspect (the crown). We all know the Kings play in Los Angeles, the team's been there for over 50 goddamned years at this point; we don't need a giant "LA" to tell us that constantly.

 

Same thing with the Rams; we all know they're in LA now, they have been for a while; what's the point of forcing it as the main part of the brand? Just going to the classic colors with a new ram logo and old-school jerseys would've been a perfect way to make the same "we're embracing LA" point without needing 30 miles of Nikespeak.


The LA Dodgers monogram is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

 

It has no wave or sunset motifs, and yet when I see it, I instantly think of everything LA is about. 

 

If they felt like they needed to set a California Vibe, they should have continued with this sort of approach. California photography, video, art, and music surrounding good design.

 

Surround your brand with LA, don't force LA into your brand. 

 

spacer.png

 

Garrett Leight California Optical is the perfect example of this.

 

spacer.png

Simple and timeless logo.

 
Surround their brand with California.

 

https://www.garrettleight.com/pages/ten-years

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hawk36 said:

Those are very nice. Should have been the logical next round of revisions for Nike but they got lazy.

 

The only thing I may add is, if they are intent on using the cut, crescent horn motif, then use that to cut the pant stripe too.

 

The above is a great example of adhering to a traditional aesthetic and using restraint in the process. The current rams mess much like the jags and browns previous sets are so over embellished with every nike feature on every area that could be customized. Less is More has never rang so true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IceCap locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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