Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

[JayMac]

6 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

TIL I learned Supreme is a skateboard brand; I've always known it as streetwear for the sake of streetwear -- which itself makes complete sense as an influence in LA's NFL uniform.

I never knew this either. I have seen the clothing all over the place but would've never had pegged it as a skateboard brand.

[mafiaman]

16 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

Wait, you’re telling me that people would actually WEAR this crap?  

[MJWalker45]

1 hour ago, mafiaman said:

Wait, you’re telling me that people would actually WEAR this crap?  

Have you seen the skateboard uniforms for the Olympics? They look somewhat like these.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

2 hours ago, mafiaman said:

Wait, you’re telling me that people would actually WEAR this crap?  

 

Yes, people have different tastes and preferences than you. It doesn't make anyone's choices wrong; it just makes them different.

[The_Admiral]

Diggin' the Laura Ashley Mother & Child vest/shorts combo

[JayMac]

1 hour ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Yes, people have different tastes and preferences than you. It doesn't make anyone's choices wrong; it just makes them different.

It's not a right or wrong thing...

 

...but they are WRONG!

[IceCap]

7 hours ago, mafiaman said:

Wait, you’re telling me that people would actually WEAR this crap?  

I teach high school. Believe me. Yes. They do. 

[sky1324]

4 hours ago, JayMac said:

It's not a right or wrong thing...

 

...but they are WRONG!

Fashion has changed a lot over the years. I'm sure whatever was popular while you were in your teenage years have fallen out of style. Again, this is just people deciding what they want to wear and it's not your decision to make whether it's right or wrong. Currently the style is pastel colors and large blocks of color. Compare this to the 80s, which featured obnoxiously baggy clothes, strange prints, and hairstyles generally considered to be bad nowadays. It's comments like this that make people seem out-of-touch when they just write off new styles and trends as "stupid" and "wrong" without considering that there are people that actually like these trends, making them popular in the first place.

[The_Admiral]

It'll be interesting to see whether fashion gets a lot more back-to-basics in the wake of the crisis or just leans clear into decadence for others to live vicariously through 

[JayMac]

25 minutes ago, QCS said:

Fashion has changed a lot over the years. I'm sure whatever was popular while you were in your teenage years have fallen out of style. Again, this is just people deciding what they want to wear and it's not your decision to make whether it's right or wrong. Currently the style is pastel colors and large blocks of color. Compare this to the 80s, which featured obnoxiously baggy clothes, strange prints, and hairstyles generally considered to be bad nowadays. It's comments like this that make people seem out-of-touch when they just write off new styles and trends as "stupid" and "wrong" without considering that there are people that actually like these trends, making them popular in the first place.

I was kidding 

[IceCap]

29 minutes ago, QCS said:

Fashion has changed a lot over the years. I'm sure whatever was popular while you were in your teenage years have fallen out of style. Again, this is just people deciding what they want to wear and it's not your decision to make whether it's right or wrong. Currently the style is pastel colors and large blocks of color. Compare this to the 80s, which featured obnoxiously baggy clothes, strange prints, and hairstyles generally considered to be bad nowadays. It's comments like this that make people seem out-of-touch when they just write off new styles and trends as "stupid" and "wrong" without considering that there are people that actually like these trends, making them popular in the first place.

On the flip side this stuff is fleeting. Just like what was stylish when I was a teenager has fallen out of style? So too will current trends. 

Meanwhile the classic pinstriped suit always looks good.

 

And that's a perfect means to explain why classic uniform styles always look good, while trendy design is fleeting.  

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Except the classic pinstripe suit doesn't actually always look good. Fits change. Materials change. Styles of suits change. Does Brad Pitt look good in a double breasted pinstripe suit? Yes, yes he does. He also looks good in whatever the hell he wants because he's Brad Pitt.

 

Are these the same Green Bay Packers as today? In many ways, yes. But also, no.

 

 

Some people will always consider certain ideas of dress to be universally good, but those are ideas of fashion that are normed through a pretty particular worldview.

[sky1324]

41 minutes ago, IceCap said:

On the flip side this stuff is fleeting. Just like what was stylish when I was a teenager has fallen out of style? So too will current trends. 

Meanwhile the classic pinstriped suit always looks good.

 

And that's a perfect means to explain why classic uniform styles always look good, while trendy design is fleeting.  

Very true, I'm not trying to defend this as a good idea to pull from sports jerseys, just defending it as actual streetwear. I happen to enjoy it, but I recognize some don't. Regardless, the Rams did it poorly and deserve every bit of the hate they're getting for it.

[IceCap]

45 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

Except the classic pinstripe suit doesn't actually always look good. Fits change. Materials change. Styles of suits change.

I think it's pretty clear I'm talking about design (colours, stripes, fonts, etc...) and not about stuff like materials and cuts. The Yankees and Habs have been wearing the same uniform forever, but the materials and cuts have evolved.

 

The Rams, meanwhile, are chasing trends. And not particularly well either.

[AgentColon2]

That gradient font is already dated before its first game. Out of trend.

[IceCap]

2 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Some people will always consider certain ideas of dress to be universally good, but those are ideas of fashion that are normed through a pretty particular worldview.

I don't think anyone is wrong to point out that, as a result of being around for a sufficiently long time, most sports have a generally accepted "aesthetic."

You still see a lot of pushback against monochrome in football, but the same colour from the helmet to the socks is commonplace in hockey and no one bats an eye.

Meanwhile monochrome other than white or grey left such a bad taste in everyone's mouth in baseball that most teams refuse to experiment with it. Even in cases where the coloured alternates have supplanted the greys as the primary road look. Basketball also has its unwritten rules, even with all the tinkering thanks to Nike. Contrasting jersey and shorts colours seems like a big no-no, with only a few NBA identities trying it over the years.

Meanwhile contrasting jerseys and pants is pretty much the standard road hockey look, and is pretty common in football too. And of course hockey and football have sleeve stripes, but when was the last time you saw a baseball jersey with sleeve striping that was anything more than a sleeve cuff treatment?

Now of course cuts and materials change, and always will change. Design though? Well as I said. I don't think it's wrong to point out that every sport has its own aesthetics that have solidified.

 

How each sport arrived at its own internally agreed upon aesthetics is another discussion, and it was likely a different path for each sport. Regardless? These standards of what was seen as "the classic look" for each sport did emerge.

 

Is there room to break away from that? Yes. It's called experimentation. Experimentation, however, implies that there will be failures. The Rams' look is a failure, even if we can all see what the inspirations were. Now does the Rams' new identity deserve props for breaking new ground even if it was a failure? I would say no. We're talking about logo and uniform design. Ultimately? The key goal is looking good. Not pushing the envelope. If you can do both? Great. If not? Your experimental failure is still ugly.

 

 

 

 

 

[Carolingian Steamroller]

3 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

Fits change. Materials change. Styles of suits change.

THIS

 

Football not only has to contend with cut and material but also equipment. We’ve gone from a smooth shell to a multi-faceted helmet in the span of a decade. Shoulder pads have shrunk in terms of width but sometime have expanded vertically. 
 

Form often follows function. Even the original Ram horn design had a curve that fit around the ear bulges on 1940’s leather helmets.

[Red Comet]

I get that there is structural changes in uniforms. No one can or should expect things to look exactly the same forever. Still, there's a reason (and a very good one) that the Yankees didn't have Rainbow Guts in the 70s and the Astros did. The Yankees even by the 70s had a strong identity while the Astros at that point were known more for where they played than what they played.

 

Thoughtlessly mucking around with brand identity destroys brand equity and when you're a company marketing a product (and let us not forget for a second that sports teams are companies at the end of the day), brand equity is as or even more important than the product you're selling itself. 

 

And when you're a team that has as long of a history as the Rams have had, brand equity is going to be a lot more important than if you're the Houston Texans. 

[Old School Fool]

I guess you could say the Rams rebrand is a boner.

 

See what I did?  Bone color, boner, I'm sorry, I had to do it. You know what forget I even posted this.

[SCL]

10 hours ago, Red Comet said:

I get that there is structural changes in uniforms. No one can or should expect things to look exactly the same forever. Still, there's a reason (and a very good one) that the Yankees didn't have Rainbow Guts in the 70s and the Astros did. The Yankees even by the 70s had a strong identity while the Astros at that point were known more for where they played than what they played.

 

Thoughtlessly mucking around with brand identity destroys brand equity and when you're a company marketing a product (and let us not forget for a second that sports teams are companies at the end of the day), brand equity is as or even more important than the product you're selling itself. 

 

And when you're a team that has as long of a history as the Rams have had, brand equity is going to be a lot more important than if you're the Houston Texans. 

This is what's so infuriating about their rebrand, they basically had to pull off what the Chargers did but they instead had to get cute and end up looking like an arena league team. This is an organization with a rich history to draw from and instead they look like a team that joined the league yesterday.