Tampa Bay Buccaneers Unveil New Uniforms

[BrandMooreArt]

Cap lays out the overall synopsis of the art direction of the 2 logos nicely above. to dig deeper, there’s not a single detail that is improved upon with the current logo. every decision they made actually made it, by all means, a lesser and poorly constructed logo, save for the brighter red.

 

look at the skull/swords on the new flag. its not integrated into it; its simply placed and rotated and looks like 2 different logos stacked on top of each other. the addition of colors and shadows makes it harder to reproduce in other applications and the pen tool work (the actual vector construction of the art) is absolutely abysmal. the flag doesnt appear to fold, its flat. look at the bottom left piece and how awkward that hump is. then behold the stray points in the black and silver keylines.

 

its easy to look at the uniforms and numbers and say “thats horrible” but the logos are all of the same quality; or lack thereof. this was not a clean up job at all, they made it incredibly more complex

 

i love the oversized logo, a pirate flag on a sword should be loud and brash! the helmet finish looks great, like an old cannonball, the new red is aggressive and bright. i give them props on the pieces they did well but if i had to vote for weakest NFL identity, from the entire logo suite to uniforms, i think this is the clear choice. 

[oldschoolvikings]

The new logo is trash... I'm not sure how anyone could look at the side by side and not get it.

[jn8]

5 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

The new logo is trash... I'm not sure how anyone could look at the side by side and not get it.

Trash? Ehh.. that’s a little strong. It’s a fine logo, but it’s... too clean? If that makes sense? The old logo had a bit of a rough look to it that was perfect for a pirate-inspired team name and logo. The new logo got rid of those details for some reason and while it did make the logo bad by any means, it was definitely a downgrade. 

[Old School Fool]

The old logo looks like it came from 1997 and it wasn't going to work any longer. The current logo is much better but could probably use some minor changes.

 

I found these concepts on a Google search and it kinda gets my point across, something like this maybe?

 

 

Or maybe something like this?

 

[Red Wolf]

What if they went with the digital alarm clocks idea and just moved even further in the future to space pirates? There's plenty of fiction there to pull from, and it's only a slightly dumber idea than what they've done.

[_DietDrPepper_]

32 minutes ago, Old School Fool said:

The old logo looks like it came from 1997 and it wasn't going to work any longer. The current logo is much better but could probably use some minor changes.

 

I found these concepts on a Google search and it kinda gets my point across, something like this maybe?

 

I feel like that’s the kids cartoon version of the logo

[BelfourThibault]

I understand that I'm in the minority on this, but I actually prefer their current uniforms to their Super Bowl set, by far. Everyone loved that look for some reason, but all I saw was a drab, ugly mess on the same level as the Eagles. I'm typically all for traditional looks, but I really like everything (especially the number and letter font) about their current uniforms. Short of a return to creamsickle, which I doubt will happen, I'd prefer they keep the current set. 

 

Again, I know that I'm in the minority on that take. 

[Old School Fool]

10 minutes ago, BelfourThibault said:

I understand that I'm in the minority on this, but I actually prefer their current uniforms to their Super Bowl set, by far. Everyone loved that look for some reason, but all I saw was a drab, ugly mess on the same level as the Eagles. I'm typically all for traditional looks, but I really like everything (especially the number and letter font) about their current uniforms. Short of a return to creamsickle, which I doubt will happen, I'd prefer they keep the current set. 

 

Again, I know that I'm in the minority on that take. 

 

I almost agree with you all the way. The number font and helmet logo size has been my only real issue with the current look.

[BBTV]

So for the record - is this NEWS?  What is NEWS?

[habsfan1]

57 minutes ago, Old School Fool said:

 

 

I like that one. The Terminator skull dressed up like the old school Buccaneer would make for an amusing secodary logo.

[_DietDrPepper_]

27 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

So for the record - is this NEWS?  What is NEWS?

You can drop it, I don’t think they’ll change it back, I mean it’s just a click difference. You can drop it

[BBTV]

3 minutes ago, BellaSpurs said:

You can drop it, I don’t think they’ll change it back, I mean it’s just a click difference. You can drop it

 

I'm sorry... who are you?

[_DietDrPepper_]

Just now, BringBackTheVet said:

 

I'm sorry... who are you?

Someone trying to give the mods a break? Because you’ve been bickering about this even though they’ve been clear that the change is confirmed to be staying

[MCM0313]

On 9/14/2019 at 10:32 PM, jn8 said:

Needs more creamsicle. Here’s my attempt:

Sorry it’s so rough, I’m working in Paint, so apparently that means I can put minimal effort into it

Wow. Those teams that were so bad they made Steve Young and Vinny Testaverde look like scrubs, and that Bo Jackson flat refused to play for. The uniforms were solid, but when you combine the 2-26 start in 1976 and '77 with the 14 straight seasons without a playoff berth from 1983-96...and the fact that the logo appears to be winking...there's too much failure stink on those duds, methinks. They'd have to rework it pretty significantly. And we are reminded every game of what they did when they reworked the 1997 set...

[BBTV]

23 minutes ago, BellaSpurs said:

Someone trying to give the mods a break? Because you’ve been bickering about this even though they’ve been clear that the change is confirmed to be staying

 

It doesn't matter who you are.  Based on the number of "likes" to my relatively-few questioning posts, I'm not alone... just want a definition, while none has been given.  Topic literally says rumor, which by definition, isn't "news".  

[_DietDrPepper_]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

It doesn't matter who you are.  Based on the number of "likes" to my relatively-few questioning posts, I'm not alone... just want a definition, while none has been given.  Topic literally says rumor, which by definition, isn't "news".  

I understand the issue, and while I agree with you on the topic, I think I’d be more appropriate and mature of you to dm the mods if your still fed up with the issue rather than publicly complaining. It’s not like the change is earth shaking anyway, it makes some things an extra click away. It’s not worth to keep throwing around, especially after mods probably saw your first post and decided to not answer because they have already said the decision is final.

[habsfan1]

39 minutes ago, BellaSpurs said:

I understand the issue, and while I agree with you on the topic, I think I’d be more appropriate and mature of you to dm the mods if your still fed up with the issue rather than publicly complaining. It’s not like the change is earth shaking anyway, it makes some things an extra click away. It’s not worth to keep throwing around, especially after mods probably saw your first post and decided to not answer because they have already said the decision is final.

 

I went over both threads to figure out how they split the topics and this is what I got:

 

Sports Logos News: All the changes and rumored possible changes from news. It even says ''Discussion of sports logo news and rumors'' in the section description.

 

Sports Logos General Discussion: Every other casual topic about sports logos. Opinions, logo history, favorite/least favorite logos, etc.

 

---

 

I was confused at first. But now I'm completely fine with how the sections were split. The Cleveland one isn't confirmed either.

[IceCap]

3 hours ago, Old School Fool said:

The old logo looks like it came from 1997 and it wasn't going to work any longer.

I'm sorry, I don't even know what that means. Why couldn't the 1997-2013 logo continue on? What about it made it unworkable? If the argument is that the new logo is more user-friendly for digital use then I have to disagree. The 2013 revamp actually made it more visually complex by adding shading and details to the swords and skull that weren't present in the original. If anything the 1997-2013 logo was better suited for the digital age we find ourselves in currently.

 

1 hour ago, MCM0313 said:

Wow. Those teams that were so bad they made Steve Young and Vinny Testaverde look like scrubs, and that Bo Jackson flat refused to play for. The uniforms were solid, but when you combine the 2-26 start in 1976 and '77 with the 14 straight seasons without a playoff berth from 1983-96...and the fact that the logo appears to be winking...there's too much failure stink on those duds, methinks. They'd have to rework it pretty significantly. And we are reminded every game of what they did when they reworked the 1997 set...

All of this is a great explanation for why they changed in 1997. It's 2019 though, and the scarlet and pewter has been associated with some lousy football as well. ESPECIALLY the current set.

Factor in what @Buc said about the creamsicle look having an air of "newness" to it after having been out of use for so long? I think there's definitely a way to make it work.

 

For the record? The Bucs' Super Bowl set was the best they ever looked. Here's what else I would like to see them do though, short of just admitting the 2013 rebrand was a mistake and reverting.

 

White helmets. The 1997 logo on the sides. Orange-red-orange striping down the middle. White or red facemasks.

Red jerseys at home, with a custom number font (not the current number font) in white with orange trim. Orange-white-orange striping on the sleeves.

White jerseys on the road, colours inverted. Red numbers, orange trim. Orange-red-orange striping on the sleeves.

White pants as the primary look, orange-red-orange striping down the sides, solid red socks. Maybe red alternate pants to switch things up on the road with striped socks.

Creamsicle throwbacks, made possible by the use of the white helmets.

 

The primary described is basically the creamsicle set with the red and orange swapped, and using the 1997-2013 logo set. It strikes a good balance, I think. It keeps the clean look of the creamsicles, but also leans into the Super Bowl look with the pirate flag primary and red as the primary colour. It also manages to mix the eras without forcing pewter and orange against each other, which never looks good in my opinion.

[Haz_Matt]

I saw this custom jersey, I would like to see something like this used, maybe combine it with the skull/Bruce hybrid logo posted already

[Old School Fool]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

I'm sorry, I don't even know what that means. Why couldn't the 1997-2013 logo continue on? What about it made it unworkable? If the argument is that the new logo is more user-friendly for digital use then I have to disagree. The 2013 revamp actually made it more visually complex by adding shading and details to the swords and skull that weren't present in the original. If anything the 1997-2013 logo was better suited for the digital age we find ourselves in currently.

 

You raise a good point about the shading. I feel like it was just an excuse to justify the chrome facemask unfortunately. I just felt like the skull and the football in the older logo looked off by the time they changed it. I think what you could do is use the old flag but modify the Skull a bit, keep the swords and football but remove the shading from all of that. I remember seeing a concept here that was similar to what I'm talking about and it looked pretty good.