Jump to content

Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion


OnWis97

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

IceCap said a bit ago that he and I were talking past each other and I didn't think so then, but I do now.

I mean it's the internet. We can't judge each other's tones and inflections. It happens. No harm done.

 

23 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

I have no doubt the Rams will revert. None at all. And the very nature of fashion -- which is different than sports design -- is it's temporary.

 

I'm not arguing the Rams should have a timeless design; that's not important to me. I also don't think that was one of their design criteria (in a way I bet the Sabres thought about the slug).

 

Should football uniforms be timeless? I don't know. Most NBA uniforms aren't. Most soccer uniforms aren't. Most NCAA football uniforms aren't.

 

Nike is clearly and deliberately creating disposable teamwear because that is better for sales potential. Their NBA and soccer offerings are clear examples of this and I would expect to see more frequent NFL redesigns as we move forward.

 

Is that progress good or bad? I don't know. A mix of both, probably. The Dolphins and Rams will modify their designs every other season while the Packers and Raiders stay the same. Which is fine! Everything doesn't have to be for everybody.

 

Taken on its own, and separate from any existential concerns about the nature of football uniforms design, I think the Rams jersey looks fine. And I think the Falcons jersey looks fine. They'll be around for however many years and will be replaced by either something old or something old-inspired. That's how it always goes.
 

But I think discounting and reducing people's actual enjoyment of something because you think it's just contrarian or not serious isn't fair.

I get all of that, and maybe I am just being unrealistic but in my mind? Every redesign should happen with the intent at longevity. Not everyone is going to be the Yankees and Canadiens who will be wearing the same thing until the heat death of the universe, but the idea of disposable design seems wrong to me. Both because it jeopardizes a team's overall brand and because it's just naked greed and consumerism. You can say it's always been that way (and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong) but I do feel a bit icky about team identities going from "this is our identity we want our fans to identify with" to "this is a product."

 

You mention the NCAA, the NBA, and soccer in general. Soccer seems to exist in its own world where this sort of thing is just how it's done, but I don't look at the NBA and NCAA and go "oh wow, that's the model everyone else should follow."

If anything the NBA's decision to submit to Nike's overall "uniform system" is pretty tragic. You have teams in the NBA that are just as storied as the legacy teams in the NFL, MLB, and NHL, yet they're out there on the court wearing jerseys devoid of their traditional colours, or with weird city nicknames slapped across them, or with unnecessary details that otherwise muddle what should be classic looks.

The Lakers wearing uniforms with black highlights? The Celtics in a tacky green and gold jersey with the most generic Irish pub font imaginable? Eww. I'd hate for that sort of thing to befall the Packers, Raiders, Red Sox, Yankees, Habs, or Leafs.

 

I am fully aware that my tastes are fare more traditional than my age may indicate and that I am screaming into a void, because money is money and Nike figured out how to milk the system for all it's worth like no other manufacture before it. And of course UA and Adidas will follow them because why would Nike show restraint and back down when the other two can follow them instead and make more money themselves?

 

I don't believe the Jags, Bucs, and Browns' previous identities were meant to be five years and done, but once that happened? Once Nike saw that this was the direction it was headed (two-three years ago, when the changes would have had to have been put in), it was inevitable this was coming to the pro level. The "city" and "earned" uniforms in the NBA were the trial run, and the NFL proved that even primaries can be switched out twice a decade at the very least.

 

I have no illusions that my naive view of teams designing with a goal of permanence or treating their brand as something to be protected will win out. And I fully expect even teams like the Yankees and Habs will bend, if not break. It just sucks, is what I'm saying.

 

 

 

8 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Just because I think the Rams' bone jersey (and really, only the retail one) looks nice in 2020 doesn't mean that I also think any contrary opinion is wrong or that I think they should keep that uniform for forever. I just like it right now is all. Dang.

Thing is I think I'd like a suit or shirt in that colour. Hell, maybe even a LA Rams shirt in that colour. As a jersey though? Eh, not sold. As the jersey they designed? Definitely not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, the perfect world is maintaining the traditional brands, like the NBA does with the Lakers' gold or Celtics' green, but also allow some room to maneuver with something like the NBA City or NFL Color Rush program. So if the Rams can keep the traditional set but also have space to go sideways with a one-year khaki and white set, then everyone wins.

 

Right now, Nike specifically seems to have the worst of all worlds by overly modernizing classic, beloved designs (like the Lakers' purple) or the Rams' blue and gold.

 

So really, it's a structural failure. There's room to make the most amount of people happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s an interesting quote. I know we some pros on here and I can’t help but feel this is close. 
 

“This is something that graphic designers and ad people have discussed in the past. People get locked into an idea and no matter what you bring them, if it doesn’t jive with the previously held belief, it won’t matter.”

 

https://www.turfshowtimes.com/platform/amp/2020/5/14/21259175/rams-new-uniforms-logo-colors-jersey-sofi-stadium-los-angeles-stan-kroenke
 

One thing this evokes is that for the last few years, the Rams had basically been rolling with the 70’s-90’s look. Even their Color Rash emulated the horn jerseys and used the same helmet as the Dickerson era. 
 

Everyone knew the Rams were going to change when they moved into their new stadium and there’s a buildup of interest in the old set: 

 

an expectation 

 

Then the team comes out and not only doesn’t deliver the Dickerson era (or a close update) but goes in the exact opposite thematic direction. 
 

That in itself doesn’t change the quality of the uniforms (I’ve said elsewhere if they go all in on the gradients it actually improves the look) but I think it does help explain the intense reaction. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m going to reserve judgment on the bone but I don’t have much of problem with the royal with gold pants. It’s a clean modern look and the colors pop. Is it perfect no can it be improved yes. Seems like some weren’t going to be satisfied unless the rams literally wore the throwbacks, which in all honesty are a little outdated in terms of needing some streamlining and the updated colors are far superior. The throwbacks always seemed a bit garish under artificial lights in the indoor stadiums.        

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, colortv said:

I’m going to reserve judgment on the bone but I don’t have much of problem with the royal with gold pants. It’s a clean modern look and the colors pop. Is it perfect no can it be improved yes. Seems like some weren’t going to be satisfied unless the rams literally wore the throwbacks, which in all honesty are a little outdated in terms of needing some streamlining and the updated colors are far superior. The throwbacks always seemed a bit garish under artificial lights in the indoor stadiums.        

 

The throwbacks were garish?? Have you seen the uniforms they just unveiled, those shades of color are brighter than anything else they've ever worn. Their road uniform is literally mostly consisted of yellow, white, and off white. That is garish. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think unless teams trade enormously on tradition, like the Packers, Raiders, Colts etc, we're going to see a lot more disposable, on trend uniforms only designed to be around for 5 years. 

 

Soccer has been doing this for 3 decades. The NBA has been rotating alternates for years. 

 

Whether it's a good thing or not will be different for everyone, but I imagine we'll have a lot of angst on these boards similar to this Rams unveiling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if there is anything that is timeless anymore when it comes to these sorts of things.  As a Chargers fan, it is gratifying to see the Rams crap the bed with their new logos and uniforms, though.

 

I wonder if the decision to go to Royal Blue was made late in the process.  The seats at Kroenke's stadium are Navy Blue.  Seems like a lost opportunity for the Rams to mark their territory.

 

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Ben in LA said:

She wasn’t necessarily talking about sports in general, nor the reaction to the Rams, but this take is how I’m feeling about all of this.

 

 

big facts

 

even though i sort of like the Rams vibe, i still feel they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory here. i think its good that one LA team aims for familiar traditions and the other aims for forward movement. but wouldnt i make more sense for the Rams to be that traditional team, where they have history, and the Chargers to do something new as they've moved to a new local? odd they finally decided to celebrate their SD history in a new city. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Red Comet said:

This Rams redesign reminds me of the Buffaslug era of the Sabres. They brought back the colors everyone wanted, but the uniform itself was hideous. 

Dare I say the Rams are actually WORSE than the Buffalslug. Freakin horrible.NFL Power Rankings: Two NFC North teams reside in Top Five after ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, joekono said:

Dare I say the Rams are actually WORSE than the Buffalslug. Freakin horrible.NFL Power Rankings: Two NFC North teams reside in Top Five after ...

 

Not sure if you were a membeer or not when Bufaslug was revealed, but there's no way this Rams update even comes cose to the slug.

 

That's more of an indictment of the slug than it is praise for the Rams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, nash61 said:

In a vacuum, and for an expansion team, the Buffaslug UNIFORMS (sans logo and front numbers) were not terrible. The same goes for Fishsticks.

 

That is crazy talk.  That Islanders jersey with wavy yoke/hem line/numbers/name plate were an over-designed mess.  The Gorton's logo was the best thing about them.

OIP.x-ecnawMI_Vk14U-UByuygHaFp?w=195&h=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ben in LA said:

She wasn’t necessarily talking about sports in general, nor the reaction to the Rams, but this take is how I’m feeling about all of this.

 


I completely agree with this in principle, honestly. I do think in the sphere of design though (and this whole post will relate strictly to design in general) that there’s many who may hold any “popular opinion” for valid, thought-out reasons other than “well, everyone else likes/hates this”. And yes, I understand that at any time I could find myself in the opposing minority there. The way I look at it, even if I don’t like that opinion, it’s still worthwhile to investigate what chord is getting struck for them that isn’t striking for me rather than completely discounting it altogether as wrong. Maybe I still disagree after, or maybe I could learn something from doing that which could help me see something in a new light. In any case, it’s still worthwhile.
 

I can only speak for myself, but I feel I’ve laid out some pretty valid reasons why the Rams’ design is jarring to me and none of them have to do with what others think or have said about them. They’re based solely on my preferences both as a graphic designer and a design enthusiast, and how many of those preferences the Rams failed to meet. Those who have liked it have done the same and shared valid reasons why they like it, and that’s great! I may disagree with most or all of those reasons, but that doesn’t make them wrong, it just means we don’t share the same preferences (and I hope that when I communicate that, it does truly communicate as a disagreement over preference and not that I’m “right”; if not, someone please feel free to correct me and I’ll be happy to work on that). Disagreement over preference is guaranteed to happen somewhere in design, no matter how big or small the divide is betweeen minority and popular opinion. 

 

I say this assuring you that I don’t think you’re wrong at all and I get where you’re coming from with this (this is much more of a general, philosophical word-spill than a rebuttal, haha ;) ) but I think we - myself included - should all be careful within the design sphere not to completely discount popular opinion just because it’s popular, just as those on the other side shouldn’t completely discount minority opinion just because it’s the minority, either. There’s valid, individual reasons on both sides that should be taken into consideration and used to better understand which chords are striking and which aren’t altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hat Boy said:

 

That is crazy talk.  That Islanders jersey with wavy yoke/hem line/numbers/name plate were an over-designed mess.  The Gorton's logo was the best thing about them.

OIP.x-ecnawMI_Vk14U-UByuygHaFp?w=195&h=1

 

I'd argue the best thing about the Fisherman set is actually the lighthouse shoulder patch. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, doctorpeligro said:

Not sure if there is anything that is timeless anymore when it comes to these sorts of things.  As a Chargers fan, it is gratifying to see the Rams crap the bed with their new logos and uniforms, though.

 

I wonder if the decision to go to Royal Blue was made late in the process.  The seats at Kroenke's stadium are Navy Blue.  Seems like a lost opportunity for the Rams to mark their territory.

 

spacer.png


How sure are we? Those seats look pretty grey in this photo.

 

For what it’s worth, new colors typically need to be finalized a year or more before the stuff hits the market and the team takes the field because the process involves matching the color and approving the swatch, then dying industrial-size rolls before it can be cut and sewn. Sublimation can be used in a pinch to cut down the lead time or if the need for a certain color is very minimal, but it usually gives the fabric a weird texture and surface because ink is essentially being fried into the garment fibers using heat and pressure.

 

15 hours ago, Carolingian Steamroller said:

Here’s an interesting quote. I know we some pros on here and I can’t help but feel this is close. 
 

“This is something that graphic designers and ad people have discussed in the past. People get locked into an idea and no matter what you bring them, if it doesn’t jive with the previously held belief, it won’t matter.”

 

https://www.turfshowtimes.com/platform/amp/2020/5/14/21259175/rams-new-uniforms-logo-colors-jersey-sofi-stadium-los-angeles-stan-kroenke
 

One thing this evokes is that for the last few years, the Rams had basically been rolling with the 70’s-90’s look. Even their Color Rash emulated the horn jerseys and used the same helmet as the Dickerson era. 
 

Everyone knew the Rams were going to change when they moved into their new stadium and there’s a buildup of interest in the old set: 

 

an expectation 

 

Then the team comes out and not only doesn’t deliver the Dickerson era (or a close update) but goes in the exact opposite thematic direction. 
 

That in itself doesn’t change the quality of the uniforms (I’ve said elsewhere if they go all in on the gradients it actually improves the look) but I think it does help explain the intense reaction. 

 


There are a lot of dynamic variables that go on behind projects like this, and unless you get the info from someone who worked on it, you’ll probably never know the truth. Even then, you’ll get different interpretations based on each person’s individual bias or opinions.

 

In this case, though, I think the writing was on the wall that they weren’t going to go straight back to the Dickerson look. It would have made little sense for them to tease it so hard for 2-3 years and then just pull the curtain on the white version and say, “Praise our new threads!” Sure, lots of people would have seen that as a victory, but others who had been following the buildup and waiting for the payoff of something new would have been let down. Remember the ribbing the Browns took when they hyped-up a “new logo” that turned out to be a new facemask and an almost imperceptibly darker orange?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be too much of a curmudgeon (because I like the look overall and intend to purchase a Powder Blue #33 Derwin James Jr. jersey), but I agree with Paul Lukas that some of the Chargers' Powder Blue elements look a little "lightweight."

 

I used a darker Navy Blue (Pantone 296 C) for the helmet numbers and as a trim color for the bolts, and I think it looks a little better.

 

spacer.png 

 

Using Navy to trim the bolts would have probably required them to use a different logo as the primary logo, maybe a modernized version of the horse shield.  With Navy or without Navy, it's a good looking uniform.

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.