OnWis97

Los Angeles NFL Brands Discussion

Recommended Posts

On 1/26/2021 at 6:24 PM, dont care said:

I just threw up in my mouth

 

I did as well. I never understood the obsession (seems to prevalent in Nike designs) with using the team/city name on jerseys and pants. The awful Browns pants, the awful jerseys with Cleveland on the front, The Rams "Hello, my name is..." tag, The Buccaneers on their jerseys, New York on the Jets...I could go on. It's unnecessary to clutter the uniforms with the name or the city. When we're watching the NFL, we KNOW who the teams are and there. College is a different story -- especially when you have many teams wearing uniforms that aren't even close the school colors. Fine, go nuts with the school name but the NFL doesn't need that rubbish.

 

I'm going on a tangent here, but I don't even like the logos being on the jerseys and/or the pants. The Ravens don't need a "B" on their pants. Hell, they don't need the "B" on the helmet. The Patriots with the logo on the jerseys and the pants is overkill. Just in case you didn't see the logo on the helmet, you can see it two more times when the players are turned to the side of the camera. The Steelers were always unique for having the logo on one side of the helmet and then they had to put the logo on the jersey. Again, unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Durden said:

 

I did as well. I never understood the obsession (seems to prevalent in Nike designs) with using the team/city name on jerseys and pants. The awful Browns pants, the awful jerseys with Cleveland on the front, The Rams "Hello, my name is..." tag, The Buccaneers on their jerseys, New York on the Jets...I could go on. It's unnecessary to clutter the uniforms with the name or the city. When we're watching the NFL, we KNOW who the teams are and there. College is a different story -- especially when you have many teams wearing uniforms that aren't even close the school colors. Fine, go nuts with the school name but the NFL doesn't need that rubbish.

 

I'm going on a tangent here, but I don't even like the logos being on the jerseys and/or the pants. The Ravens don't need a "B" on their pants. Hell, they don't need the "B" on the helmet. The Patriots with the logo on the jerseys and the pants is overkill. Just in case you didn't see the logo on the helmet, you can see it two more times when the players are turned to the side of the camera. The Steelers were always unique for having the logo on one side of the helmet and then they had to put the logo on the jersey. Again, unnecessary.

Well most of your examples are just small wordmarks on the collar to help against  counterfeiters 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dont care said:

Well most of your examples are just small wordmarks on the collar to help against  counterfeiters 


I hear that a lot, but it doesn’t make any sense. 
 

Counterfeiters can recreate proprietary fabrics, they can match colors, duplicate custom fonts with ease, and somehow we think they’ll be stymied by vector logos they can download from a hundred sites on the web?

 

Those logos are there for retail jerseys, to promote the brand when worn with street clothes.  Neck collar logos are particularly intended to show when a jersey is worn under a jacket.  Deterring counterfeiters doesn’t even enter into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gothamite said:


I hear that a lot, but it doesn’t make any sense. 
 

Counterfeiters can recreate proprietary fabrics, they can match colors, duplicate custom fonts with ease, and somehow we think they’ll be stymied by vector logos they can download from a hundred sites on the web?

 

Those logos are there for retail jerseys, to promote the brand when worn with street clothes.  Neck collar logos are particularly intended to show when a jersey is worn under a jacket.  Deterring counterfeiters doesn’t even enter into it.

 

Not stymied, but if they replicate the wordmark or a logo, there's more of a legal case against them.  Anyone can make a black jersey with yellow strips and white numbers and sell it as "Pittsburgh (independent) Football Jersey", but once they put the patch on, it's illegal.  Same with collar wordmarks.  The argument against that is that some teams, like the Eagles, have both sleeve logos and collar wordmark, so I'd assume that's just a style thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rams are so close, it baffles me how they missed at all. In these very poorly photoshopped images (in spoiler so I don't flood the topic with pictures), I have changed exactly 4 things:

- Removed gradient on the numbers

- Changed all bone elements to white

- Changed striping on bone (now white) elements from white-yellow to blue-yellow

- Changed socks worn with blue pants to white

 

Lo and behold, it's a top 10 uniform in the NFL, maybe even higher, and a great modernization of the classic look.

Spoiler

rams-fix-1.png 

rams-fix-2.png 

rams-fix-3.jpg 

rams-fix-4.jpg 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Magic Dynasty said:

The Rams are so close, it baffles me how they missed at all. In these very poorly photoshopped images (in spoiler so I don't flood the topic with pictures), I have changed exactly 4 things:

- Removed gradient on the numbers

- Changed all bone elements to white

- Changed striping on bone (now white) elements from white-yellow to blue-yellow

- Changed socks worn with blue pants to white

 

Lo and behold, it's a top 10 uniform in the NFL, maybe even higher, and a great modernization of the classic look.

  Reveal hidden contents

rams-fix-1.png 

rams-fix-2.png 

rams-fix-3.jpg 

rams-fix-4.jpg 

 

 

I don't think that brings it up to top 10 at all.

  • The yellow isn't a good shade of yellow. Too highlighter-ish.
  • The segmented horn still looks bad
  • Italicized numbers on the shoulders is still an odd choice
  • The wordmark patches
  • The reflective material in the numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, PaleVermilion81 said:

 

I don't think that brings it up to top 10 at all.

  • The yellow isn't a good shade of yellow. Too highlighter-ish.
  • The segmented horn still looks bad
  • Italicized numbers on the shoulders is still an odd choice
  • The wordmark patches
  • The reflective material in the numbers

I’m also not a fan of the number font in general, I’d prefer a block font.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2021 at 6:04 PM, Ridleylash said:

The gradient numbers and stripes are pretty damn awful, and the split horn will always be pretty crummy. I mean, having white touch yellow also breaks a rule of tincuture, which doesn't help.

 

Let me address this right quick. This comes up around here from time to time, and I've heard this statement for years, and as medieval heraldry has long been a deep interest of mine, I can speak to this point. First off, yes, it is true that by "rule of tincture", one should not place metal upon metal (metal = silver or gold--or argent and or, if one wants to be technical--often depicted by using white and yellow). However, that "rule" is not so much a law as it is a guideline, and even the very people who created the "rule" oftentimes "broke" it themselves, and heraldic artists often still do, specifically in two applications: ecclesiastical arms, or royal Arma.

 

Here are some examples of white "touching" yellow in ecclesiastical arms:

 

coat-of-arms-of-queen-isabella-of-castil

 

 

sc0247f42ea.jpg

 

220px-Coat_of_arms_of_the_Diocese_of_Cub

 

And here are some examples wherein argent and or pretty much make up the whole coat...

 

the-arms-of-bishop-artur-wiecinski-of-th

 

ecclesiastical-heraldry-church-patriarch

 

archbishop-coat-of-arms-ecclesiastical-h

 

Now, before anyone says it (because somebody is bound to say it because some people just want to be contrarian), yes the different charges and ordinaries and such are all outlined in black (excuse me, sable). That's pretty much standard fare for any illustrated version of arms, as seen above--but the outlines themselves are technically not part of the coat. Anyway, my point is this: no rules are "hard or fast" when it comes to design; they can be "broken". But there's a way to do so that leads to great effect, just like there's a way to do so that just comes across sloppy, so if one's gonna "break" the "rules", one better know how to "break" them and more importantly why one is "breaking" them. 

 

By the way: none of this is advocating for bone and white at all...not even one little bit. And while we're on that topic...

 

6 hours ago, PaleVermilion81 said:

 

I don't think that brings it up to top 10 at all.

  • The yellow isn't a good shade of yellow. Too highlighter-ish.
  • The segmented horn still looks bad
  • Italicized numbers on the shoulders is still an odd choice
  • The wordmark patches
  • The reflective material in the numbers

 

I legit just now noticed that...as if I needed anything else to scratch my head about with this Rams brand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, gold and white can touch.  Rules are made to be broken.  But as you note, if they're going to do that there should be a very good reason to do so, and with the intention of provoking a very specific effect.

 

This... is not that.

 

wa5ayxpyfxzbdaufnunbside_bone.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Yes, gold and white can touch.  Rules are made to be broken.  But as you note, if they're going to do that there should be a very good reason to do so, and with the intention of provoking a very specific effect.

 

This... is not that.

 

wa5ayxpyfxzbdaufnunbside_bone.jpg

 

PREEEEEcisely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've mantained from the start that the Rams put the bone and bright white edge to edge deliberately, to show off the odd color choice. I think their idea was that if they simply replaced all true white with bone, you might miss the difference, or just see they result as looking dingy. If they place a few elements of bright snow white up against the dull gray, it is supposed to emphasize that the new color is a choice, and by implication, bold, new, whatever.

 

I'm not saying it works, but it certainly isn't an accident or a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

I've mantained from the start that the Rams put the bone and bright white edge to edge deliberately, to show off the odd color choice. I think their idea was that if they simply replaced all true white with bone, you might miss the difference, or just see they result as looking dingy. If they place a few elements of bright snow white up against the dull gray, it is supposed to emphasize that the new color is a choice, and by implication, bold, new, whatever.

 

I'm not saying it works, but it certainly isn't an accident or a mistake.

Not an accident, but it was definitely a mistake to think it was a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

I think their idea was that if they simply replaced all true white with bone, you might miss the difference, or just see they result as looking dingy.

 

Am I the only one that always reads the word "dingy" as "ding ee" for a split second before brain self-auto-corrects it to "din jee"?  I do it every single time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2021 at 4:26 PM, Ridleylash said:

Exactly. People would be furious if the Dodgers announced a complete redesign where they aped a bunch of design trends because Dodgers fans, the people the team markets to, don't want "trendy" and "hip", they want things that look and feel like the Dodgers. Same with the Rams; people don't want some gimmicky trashheap with gray and split horns and gradients and all this other crap, they want the classic LA Rams;

spacer.png

 

Like, this is one of the best looks in all of football. Change the helmet color all you like, but the Rams should've just made these jerseys their main set, maybe made some new logos and been done with it. Instead, we got a gimmick-loaded and over-designed mess of a uniform that won't last past it's obligatory five years. This is an elder statesman franchise, not a 2016 expansion team.

 

I think these look better in 2020/2021, just more modern.

 

1284806267.0.jpg

 

r9hnpysf5z60e5u0rmkt.jpg

 

rams-dolphins-football-51106.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BBTV said:

Am I the only one that always reads the word "dingy" as "ding ee" for a split second before brain self-auto-corrects it to "din jee"?  I do it every single time.

I mean, whoever came up with the bone idea probably should be put on a dinghy, but that's beside the point. 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2021 at 4:19 PM, colortv said:

 

Exactly, so maybe everyone should stop acting like their opinions are facts.

Glad this was finally said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, colortv said:

 

I think these look better in 2020/2021, just more modern.

 

1284806267.0.jpg

 

r9hnpysf5z60e5u0rmkt.jpg

 

rams-dolphins-football-51106.jpg

 

They're not terrible (this set at least) in a vacuum. But here's the thing, they're NOT in a vacuum. These are the Los Angeles Rams who are among the NFL's classic teams. Therefore, it goes beyond whether a uniform is objectively good, it has to be a matter of if this reflects the TEAM. And these don't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's objective to say that there's little cohesion between the different parts of the blue over yellow set.  The helmet has breaks in the horn where the "swirls" (I forget the term they used for them) are, yet the jersey, that's numbers feature the same swirls, doesn't have any breaks.  Also, the pants have rather traditional striping, while the jersey has no traditional elements to it, and has gradients in the numbers that don't tie into anything (at least the blue pants continue the effect.)

 

That's objective criticism of the blue over yellow set.

 

Here's some subjective criticism - the breaks in the swirl of the helmet look stupid, as do the gradients.  The overall set lacks cohesion and when coupled with a weak primary logo, lags at the bottom of the pack as far as NFL uniforms go.

 

Why do a couple of you take this so personally, as if criticizing the uniforms is like criticizing you?  If you like it then that's great, but the defensive stance that's been taken makes it difficult to have a conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2021 at 7:19 PM, colortv said:

 

Exactly, so maybe everyone should stop acting like their opinions are facts.

 

5 hours ago, Ben in LA said:

Glad this was finally said

 

Honestly, in my years on this board, that has "finally" been said about a thousand times. Usually when someone has a minority opinion and they're feeling attacked by hearing everyone express the opposite opinion. 

 

Look it's a message board... it's basically all opinions. What do you want, everyone to preface every post with "In my opinion..."?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ben in LA said:

Glad this was finally said

Yeah, I don't understand this sentiment. Opinions are always opinions, but they're also usually presented by whomever is uttering it as fact. It's the whole nature of "argument." This is a debate, and you make your case for something with authority (and, yes, occasionally hyperbole.)

 

I can say the Rams uniforms are "objectively the worst in human history," but there's nothing objective about that statement. Just because someone presents it as fact doesn't mean it is — understanding that is sort of implied.  

 

It's kind of why message boards like this exist, though I'm sure if you dig hard enough there's a Reddit thread where everybody agrees all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.