Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[sky1324]

12 minutes ago, colortv said:

 

It's all a matter of opinion, a professional firm designed these.

And in most people's opinion, that professional firm did a historically bad job at it, too.

[Ridleylash]

23 minutes ago, colortv said:

It's all a matter of opinion, a professional firm designed these.

A professional firm that breaks one of the most obvious color rules imaginable (not putting bright yellow on white), sure. That doesn't make them good, it just means more people somehow thought these uniforms were a good idea.

 

Quote

Please stop with the bolding/underlining/italicizing. It's obnoxious and annoying and does nothing to add to the actual substance of your posts.

It's emphasis. Or am I not allowed to emphasize a point now because you personally find it "obnoxious and annoying"? 

 

Quote

Or switch to decaf, whatever works.

Don't even drink coffee, so I can't exactly switch.  There's such a thing as being critical of a uniform, we don't all have to like it just because it's the Rams. If anything, the Rams :censored:ing up such an easy-to-perfect and iconic brand so badly is more likely to draw a more severe reaction than a team like, say, the Texans, simply because there's such high expectations.

 

If one of the most inept organizations in the sport (the Chargers) can nail the aesthetics, how the hell does one of the biggest teams in the league in one of the biggest markets stumble this badly? The Rams had the easiest goddamn road possible and they still somehow stumbled on every turn. That's what happens when you get too cute for your own good.

[SFGiants58]

53 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

 

Snip

 

Dude, I think you should probably stop using italics, bolding, and underlines in your posts. You overuse them and it makes what you're trying to say harder to read. It makes you come off as annoying and betrays the quality of what you're trying to say. When I'm imagining that the person behind your posts talks like this:

 

 

...you're not gonna have people taking you seriously.

[jws008]

On 5/16/2020 at 7:29 PM, IceCap said:

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.

......

And I fully expect even teams like the Yankees and Habs will bend, if not break.

Well, in the Yankees case it has already happened (in a sense).

 

My favorite uniform fact ever is that Babe Ruth never (as an active player, since you can find photos of him in it from after his career) wore the classic Yankees home uniform. His were just plain pinstripes, with no interlocking NY on the chest. And for a portion of his Yankees career, the road uniform had “Yankees” across the chest, not the classic “New York” we all think of.

 

Never mind that the shape of that NY has also evolved over time, too.

 

Granted we’re talking here about evolutionary changes to the Yankees uniform, which, from what I read of your posts (and what I write in mine) is something we’re both comfortable with.

 

My point is that everything does change; I think you and I are in agreement that evolutionary change is what we want to see in most good designs (this does not mean we are anti-modern or even anti-revolutionary). But we don’t want design without basis or logic or reasoning behind it (part of what is bad about this Rams redesign, as I posted and ranted about a few pages back).
 

Dodgers blue has changed over the years and will again. The Yankees might go back to “Yankees” on the chest of the road uniform. Both would be evolutionary in most executions, and while we might not like it, it would be acceptable. I think that this is all I want out of any new uniform design. (I think I’m expressing this right for IceCap, too; he can feel free to point out if I’m wrong).

 

I’m not going to re-post the litany of things I find bad about this Rams redesign all over again, but I just think they missed the mark — they went for revolutionary and missed badly with a poor design (especially when evolutionary was what seemed to be wanted and anticipated).

 

Sorry for the long post...

[jws008]

5 hours ago, _J_ said:

 

 

Bone does look good on the sideline apparel and works with the colors. Still shouldnt be the primary road though.

It’s a nice looking polo for the LA Country Club or LA Sports Bar or Lou and Albert’s Drain Cleaning company.

 

It’s even a nice looking sideline football polo, as soon as you swap out the LA logo for the Ram’s head (any version of it). That would also be true if it were bright white, instead of off-white or light grey or whatever it was they called this color again.

 

[IceCap]

16 minutes ago, jws008 said:

My favorite uniform fact ever is that Babe Ruth never (as an active player, since you can find photos of him in it from after his career) wore the classic Yankees home uniform. His were just plain pinstripes, with no interlocking NY on the chest. And for a portion of his Yankees career, the road uniform had “Yankees” across the chest, not the classic “New York” we all think of.

Ha! Fun fact. 

 

16 minutes ago, jws008 said:

Never mind that the shape of that NY has also evolved over time, too.

 

Granted we’re talking here about evolutionary changes to the Yankees uniform, which, from what I read of your posts (and what I write in mine) is something we’re both comfortable with.

Yes. Uniform evolutions happen. The Habs' classic CH has changed too. As have the Leafs' leaf and the Bears' C. 

 

16 minutes ago, jws008 said:

My point is that everything does change; I think you and I are in agreement that evolutionary change is what we want to see in most good designs (this does not mean we are anti-modern or even anti-revolutionary). But we don’t want design without basis or logic or reasoning behind it (part of what is bad about this Rams redesign, as I posted and ranted about a few pages back).

Exactly. 
People here are going on about how "oh you would have been disappointed with anything not the throwbacks." 

No. That's incorrect. You can tweak the throwbacks. You can evolve the Rams' classic look. They almost did that with the home look, but botched it with segmented horns, gradient numbers, and weird name patches. 

Still, the overall idea is there. 

 

The road uniform is just a complete curveball that almost feels like a weird alternate that got promoted to primary road status because someone lost the real road set in the mail. 

 

And not a good curveball either. The colours all run together, the "horns" on the sleeves seem random...it all feels so experimental. Which I suppose is laudable in its own way, but "experimental" implies that there will be failures. 

And someone should have seen this and said "no, this is too far." 

 

16 minutes ago, jws008 said:

Dodgers blue has changed over the years and will again. The Yankees might go back to “Yankees” on the chest of the road uniform. Both would be evolutionary in most executions, and while we might not like it, it would be acceptable. I think that this is all I want out of any new uniform design. (I think I’m expressing this right for IceCap, too; he can feel free to point out if I’m wrong).

You're right on the money. 

 

There were ways to evolve the Rams' classic look. Look at what the Chargers and Browns did. 

What the Rams did was get too enamoured with their own "vision" that they lost sight of the very attainable goal- a nice LA Rams uniform. 

[jws008]

Just now, IceCap said:

This doesn't discount the "classic-ness" of the Yankees' classic look. 

 

Yes. Uniform evolutions happen. The Habs' classic CH has changed too. As have the Leafs' leaf and the Bears' C. 

 

Exactly. 
People here are going on about how "oh you would have been disappointed with anything not the throwbacks." 

No. That's incorrect. You can tweak the throwbacks. You can evolve the Rams' classic look. They almost did that with the home look, but botched it with segmented horns, gradient numbers, and weird name patches. 

Still, the overall idea is there. 

 

The road uniform is just a complete curveball that almost feels like a weird alternate that got promoted to primary road status because someone lost the real road set in the mail. 

 

And not a good curveball either. The colours all run together, the "horns" on the sleeves seem random...it all feels so experimental. Which I suppose is laudable in its own way, but "experimental" implies that there will be failures. 

And someone should have seen this and said "no, this is too far." 

 

You're right on the money. 

 

There were ways to evolve the Rams' classic look. Look at what the Chargers and Browns did. 

What the Rams did was get too enamoured with their own "vision" that they lost sight of the very attainable goal- a nice LA Rams uniform. 

Well, like I said, we agree on a lot.

[oldschoolvikings]

1 hour ago, Ridleylash said:

 

White touching bright yellow (which you'll know is a bad combo if you've taken art class for a single year).

 

36 minutes ago, Ridleylash said:

A professional firm that breaks one of the most obvious color rules imaginable (not putting bright yellow on white).

 

First, let me make it clear I'm not trying to defend the new Rams' uniform, however...

 

I've taught art, color theory, and 2D design on the college level for 20+ years, and somehow have never found an occasion to give a "white and yellow should never touch" lecture. I understand why a lot of people have issues with the legibility of white elements against yellow elements, but the only "rule" of design is does this work? If it's not something you care to see, that's fine, but please stop referring to some non-existent rule-book to justify what you like or dislike. It's totally OK just to dislike it because it doesn't visually appeal to you.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

27 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

It's totally OK just to dislike it because it doesn't visually appeal to you.

 

 

And, of course, the converse as well.

[colortv]

1 hour ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

 

First, let me make it clear I'm not trying to defend the new Rams' uniform, however...

 

I've taught art, color theory, and 2D design on the college level for 20+ years, and somehow have never found an occasion to give a "white and yellow should never touch" lecture. I understand why a lot of people have issues with the legibility of white elements against yellow elements, but the only "rule" of design is does this work? If it's not something you care to see, that's fine, but please stop referring to some non-existent rule-book to justify what you like or dislike. It's totally OK just to dislike it because it doesn't visually appeal to you.

 

Yeah, number one issue around here is everyone peddling their opinions as facts.

 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

21 minutes ago, colortv said:

 

Yeah, number one issue around here is everyone peddling their opinions as facts.

 

 

I think that's unavoidable. You can ask people to say "I think...." in front of every statement, but that's kind of tedious.

 

I think what happens a lot is people ascribing motivation to preferences. Like, "you're just saying that because...." It's not conducive to productive conversation. You know, use I statements and not you statements.

[MDGP]

2 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

I've taught art, color theory, and 2D design on the college level for 20+ years, and somehow have never found an occasion to give a "white and yellow should never touch" lecture . . . but please stop referring to some non-existent rule-book to justify what you like or dislike.

 

There is a rule that states white and yellow shouldn't touch. It's called the rule of tincture. It's a heraldry thing. Two metals should never touch, white and yellow are both considered metals. I personally don't subscribe to it like some people do, but it's definitely not non-existent.

[hendocfc]

It's more of an unwritten preference thing. There's no actual "rule" about it, it's just understood to be visually un-appealing most of the time.

[The_Admiral]

2 minutes ago, hendocfc said:

It's more of an unwritten preference thing. There's no actual "rule" about it, it's just understood to be visually un-appealing most of the time.

No, it's an explicit heraldry rule, and sports team identities are kind of the modern American successor to heraldry, make of that what you will.

[hendocfc]

I meant like outside of heraldry, I'm aware of the heraldic rules. Fun fact: In Scotland, sports team crests/badges must conform to heraldic rules/laws and any breach gets you a fine and a change of crest. 

 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/34882922

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/airdrieonians-0-lord-lyon-1-5408847

 

(my apologies if I'm not meant to post links like that, I'll edit the post accordingly if needed)

[Ben in LA]

54 minutes ago, colortv said:

Yeah, number one issue around here is everyone peddling their opinions as facts.

[MDGP]

54 minutes ago, hendocfc said:

I meant like outside of heraldry, I'm aware of the heraldic rules. Fun fact: In Scotland, sports team crests/badges must conform to heraldic rules/laws and any breach gets you a fine and a change of crest. 

 

 

Well, sure. Obviously it's not a steadfast rule outside of heraldry. Hell, half the time heraldry doesn't follow heraldry. I was just referring to the fact that OSV was claiming that people were just making it up out of nowhere.

 

 

Also, I agree, that is a fun fact.

[SFGiants58]

It also depends on the yellow. The “Athletic Gold” shades (1235 C and 123 C) look better bordering white than yellow.

Athletic Gold:

 

 

Yellow:

 

 

Athletic Gold:

 

Yellow:

 

 

I’m sure there are counter examples to each of mine, but more saturated/darker yellows look better against white. It’s not ideal, but it can work. 

[L10nheart404]

I still can get over how gorgeous the Rams' helmets are. Regardless of your feelings on the uniforms , I think this beauty Is a home run...

[hugevolsfan]

I do like the color but the horn still does not look like a horn it looks more like a moon & stripe. Also someone said it fits almost every model of helmet but no it clearly is cut off here at the bottom because you are just never gonna fit every helmet model of today. 

 

The chargers uniforms with the navy blue someone did look mismatched that is one of the reasons I was not a fan of the throwbacks. There is not enough powder blue on the helmet & pants. I just like some color balance on uniforms with a couple of rare exceptions.