Washington NFL Franchise Retires Name and Logo

[JayMac]

12 hours ago, ltjets21 said:

I saw in Paul Lukas' NFL uniform ratings he rated the Chiefs uniforms 30th because of their use of an arrowhead. While I do not agree with this or his rankings as a whole I think an outline of the state of Missouri with KC inside would be an interesting route to take.

The Kansas City Missourians. Imagine the opening night game between the Texans and Missourians.

[Chawls]

1 hour ago, canzman said:

 

These are not correct.

 

According to official logo slick there is no workmark right now.

 

Washington with the year is primary

Washington alone is secondary

Roudel is tertiary

 

W by itself is not an official logo.

 

can you post the uniforms yet? I’m still confused about what they’re going to wear.  

[BadSeed84]

13 hours ago, ltjets21 said:

I saw in Paul Lukas' NFL uniform ratings he rated the Chiefs uniforms 30th because of their use of an arrowhead. While I do not agree with this or his rankings as a whole I think an outline of the state of Missouri with KC inside would be an interesting route to take.

 

In regards to his rankings, well you know what they say opinions are like....

 

Also on Washington generic team, I feel wish the logos were burgundy, yellow & white, really not caring for just burgundy and yellow.

[canzman]

35 minutes ago, Chawls said:

can you post the uniforms yet? I’m still confused about what they’re going to wear.  

So am I... As I stated. I do not know if the Slick is correct or the renders are correct.

 

Both unfortunately have a history of being inaccurate. I remember one year the the Browns showed mid-calf brown socks with just orange stripes and no white in the style guide... those didn't exist or if they did we never saw them. 

 

We really are not going to know until we actually see the team in them in some official capacity. 

[canzman]

To be clear the NFL refers to "Logos" as Marks in their documentation. What are listed on Chris's site as Wordmarks in NFL documentation are called logotypes. No logotype is listed for Washington in this new temporary set.

 

They only show Primary, secondary and tertiary marks, no logotype at all and the W alone is not an official mark according to the document.

[Gothamite]

7 minutes ago, canzman said:

So am I... As I stated. I do not know if the Slick is correct or the renders are correct.

 

Which renders?  The bad photoshop job on the wrong template in front of a soccer goal?   If we're trying to figure out which ones are wrong, my money's on those.   

[canzman]

Just now, Gothamite said:

 

Which renders?  The bad photoshop job on the wrong template in front of a soccer goal?   If we're trying to figure out which ones are wrong, my money's on those.   

yes those, but as I stated these logo slicks from the league have been historically inaccurate as well.

 

Teams themself can post things incorrectly. Case in point the Patriots debuting the new uniforms with the wrong pant.

 

[gosioux76]

13 hours ago, ltjets21 said:

I saw in Paul Lukas' NFL uniform ratings he rated the Chiefs uniforms 30th because of their use of an arrowhead. While I do not agree with this or his rankings as a whole I think an outline of the state of Missouri with KC inside would be an interesting route to take.

I'm sure all the people living in the Kansas half of that metro area would love it.

[canzman]

OK, everyone ready for more confusion.

 

Teams have two documents. The logo slick which show Marks, Logotypes and uniforms.

 

They also have Uniform spec docs that give more detail on the uniforms. Manufacturing specifics like accurate stripe width, placing, spacing etc etc.

 

Washington has now added the Uniform spec doc and it shows different options than the logo slick.

 

Logo slick shows the Burgundy and white jersey as well as the traditional 2 stripe white and burgundy pants, a mid-calf burgundy sock, and 2 striped white sock and the throwback but with blank sleeves and a gray face masked blank helmet.

 

The uniform doc shows the same 2 jerseys but only the 3 stripe gold pant and the 2 stripe burgundy with no white pant. As well as the throwback with blank sleeves and a gray face masked blank helmet.

[canzman]

So based on what we got this is just my guess as to the possible options/combos for Washington this season.

Dark






White






Throwback

[Gothamite]

53 minutes ago, canzman said:

yes those, but as I stated these logo slicks from the league have been historically inaccurate as well.

 

Teams themself can post things incorrectly. Case in point the Patriots debuting the new uniforms with the wrong pant.

 

I get that, I just wanted to tease Washington again about posting a bad photoshop job of a player in the wrong template in front of a soccer goal. 

 

[canzman]

NFL cracks me up at times. They either give inaccurate info or they don’t adhere to their own guidelines.

 

Every team's logo slicks specifically state that marks and such can’t be altered and that using parts of marks instead of the complete mark is not acceptable yada yada. They are very clear on this.

 

So as I have stated the W by itself is not an official mark in any capacity according the Leagues own documentation yet the W by itself is used on NFL.com. NFLShop as well as the team’s official site. So either they are not complying with their own guidelines or the documentation is incorrect.

[BrianVlietDesign]

34 minutes ago, canzman said:

So based on what we got this is just my guess as to the possible options/combos for Washington...
 

 

I didn't include the jerseys in the quote because it's ridiculous in size. But...I don't have many issues with the uniform itself. It's basically the same as before except with numbers on the helmet and WASHINGTON under the front of the collar. My biggest pet peeve about these uniforms, though, is the numbers on the helmet. I am a little surprised that the team didn't just use these:

 

 

At least with these two options they offer some type of "identity" or identifier. Especially when this process could take a year and a half to come up with something they feel suits them. This doesn't mean I am against the use of numbers on the helmet. Just not in this scenario. Because while the temporary name may feel lifeless, the team looks like it, too.

[gosioux76]

2 minutes ago, ThePonderer said:

At least with these two options they offer some type of "identity" or identifier. Especially when this process could take a year and a half to come up with something they feel suits them. This doesn't mean I am against the use of numbers on the helmet. Just not in this scenario. Because while the temporary name may feel lifeless, the team looks like it, too.

 

That's true. I can't argue that point. But I also think it's wise for the team, in this weird interim period, to avoid having any sort of identity. This organization is in the early stages of a wholecloth rebranding — soup to nuts, as they say. Why make the effort to build some Brand X identity? 

 

What they're doing is the smartest thing they could do (which is saying a lot, considering who we're talking about.) Keep the foundation of the uniforms but drop all traces of the name and logo. Nothing more. We're wired to want some sort of logo to associate with a professional sports team, but this is an unusual circumstance where avoiding any and all imagery is the best way to go. 

[BrianVlietDesign]

1 minute ago, gosioux76 said:

We're wired to want some sort of logo to associate with a professional sports team, but this is an unusual circumstance where avoiding any and all imagery is the best way to go. 

 

That's a good point. They are trying to disassociate with their former identity and I agree that pushing Brand X is not worth the effort. But my counter argument to that then is why make merchandise with any of these marks? Why bother putting Washington on the chest? I could also ask this question to the LA Rams. Why switch everything to white and do a complete 180 a few years later? Owners invest time and money into this enterprise. Selling a product, even in transition, comes with wanting your customers (or fans in this scenario) to connect with you.

 

Dan Snyder sucks and we can all agree on that. But after living in an area (Richmond, VA) where a large mass of Washington fans identify and connect with the team and its history, this is a real kick in the nuts for them. Now I'm a Ravens fan. I don't have that same fandom they do. However I've also been an advocate of them changing the name for a long time and what better way to transition into something new than to identify as Washington's team? For me, if I was a fan of them, something as simple as that roundel or the singular W logo helps make that transition a bit more bearable.

[McCall]

5 minutes ago, ThePonderer said:

 

That's a good point. They are trying to disassociate with their former identity and I agree that pushing Brand X is not worth the effort. But my counter argument to that then is why make merchandise with any of these marks? Why bother putting Washington on the chest? I could also ask this question to the LA Rams. Why switch everything to white and do a complete 180 a few years later? Owners invest time and money into this enterprise. Selling a product, even in transition, comes with wanting your customers (or fans in this scenario) to connect with you.

 

Dan Snyder sucks and we can all agree on that. But after living in an area (Richmond, VA) where a large mass of Washington fans identify and connect with the team and its history, this is a real kick in the nuts for them. Now I'm a Ravens fan. I don't have that same fandom they do. However I've also been an advocate of them changing the name for a long time and what better way to transition into something new than to identify as Washington's team? For me, if I was a fan of them, something as simple as that roundel or the singular W logo helps make that transition a bit more bearable.

Yeah, but it's just gonna change again in a year or two. Minimize the change as much as possible. The "Washington" on the jerseys is essentially just an identifier, nothing more. Keep it as simple and non-identity now so it feels less like going from one identity to another identity to a third identity in such short order.

[guest23]

57 minutes ago, canzman said:

NFL cracks me up at times. They either give inaccurate info or they don’t adhere to their own guidelines.

 

Every team's logo slicks specifically state that marks and such can’t be altered and that using parts of marks instead of the complete mark is not acceptable yada yada. They are very clear on this.

 

So as I have stated the W by itself is not an official mark in any capacity according the Leagues own documentation yet the W by itself is used on NFL.com. NFLShop as well as the team’s official site. So either they are not complying with their own guidelines or the documentation is incorrect.

 

When a franchise opts to abandon its identity (for good reason) and adopt a placeholder weeks before the start of training camp you are going to find multiple occurrences of inconsistent applications of new marks across media and in merchandise because they are delegating out work and rushing to scrub away the old identity. Attention to detail and quality control is sacrificed for the sake of getting the work done.

[BrianVlietDesign]

1 minute ago, McCall said:

Yeah, but it's just gonna change again in a year or two. Minimize the change as much as possible. The "Washington" on the jerseys is essentially just an identifier, nothing more. Keep it as simple and non-identity now so it feels less like going from one identity to another identity to a third identity in such short order.

 

I get that but technically it's already happening. I do see where you both are going with this. Maybe I'm looking at this from more of a fan perspective so that's how I'm going to view this particular thing. But I agree with your point in the sense that fans are likely to not be that invested in what happens this season anyways, due to the pandemic and other issues happening throughout the country. So creating something with as little effort as possible in order to transition to something "better" makes sense. But I prefer the effort being put in. Granted I, like many, don't expect much from Snyder.

[guest23]

4 minutes ago, McCall said:

Yeah, but it's just gonna change again in a year or two. Minimize the change as much as possible. The "Washington" on the jerseys is essentially just an identifier, nothing more. Keep it as simple and non-identity now so it feels less like going from one identity to another identity to a third identity in such short order.

 

It's also probably an easier modification to the jerseys to overlay a washington wordmark over the old one rather than trying to remove it and leave it blank.

[canzman]

1 minute ago, guest23 said:

 

When a franchise opts to abandon its identity (for good reason) and adopt a placeholder weeks before the start of training camp you are going to find multiple occurrences of inconsistent applications of new marks across media and in merchandise because they are delegating out work and rushing to scrub away the old identity. Attention to detail and quality control is sacrificed for the sake of getting the work done.

It isn't just this those. There have been a lot of inconsistency and inaccuracy in these documents over the years for all franchise under normal circumstances.