NFL 2020

[Tracy Jordan]

1 hour ago, TheOatsMustFlow said:

What the Cardinals need to do is use this throwback design posted by jimmynutini.com (not sure of his CCSLC username):

 

 

Use the updated Cardinal bird of course. Keep the gray facemask. Have white socks with matching the stripes. For the red jersey, use a similar stripe scheme, no flag, and have a black outline for the white numbers. 

 

No need to change the Cardinal logo, especially not to the gray "Desert Cardinal". 

 

YES to both of these. If the Seahawks made that their primary unis, they would instantly be Top 5 in the NFL, IMO. I love the blend of those colors with the original logo.

[tohasbo]

52 minutes ago, TornadoGTS said:

I see it in a 2009 one I have for them, but it wasnt in the 2012, so maybe went away with the Nike switchover?

I had ones from 2006-2011 but everything from back then as well as a lot of other style guides from 2004-2011 but those were all lost when a thunderstorm zapped an external hard drive and I lost a LOT of things

[Sec19Row53]

6 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

If I were king, every single change would be made with the intention of sticking around forever.  No, that doesn't mean that nobody else would ever change again...trends, attitudes, change; teams move; teams go through losing periods; looks get stale even if it wouldn't have been predictable.  But they would not be designed with the expectation that they'll need to be redesigned again.  The Mariners and the White Sox would be the norm (or at least the intent), not the just-ditched Browns look or the silly two-toned Jags helmet.

Mariners? They strike me as a frequently-changed uniform. Colors and logos, too, as far as that goes. 

[gosioux76]

2 hours ago, TheOatsMustFlow said:

What the Cardinals need to do is use this throwback design posted by jimmynutini.com (not sure of his CCSLC username):

 

 

Use the updated Cardinal bird of course. Keep the gray facemask. Have white socks with matching the stripes. For the red jersey, use a similar stripe scheme, no flag, and have a black outline for the white numbers. 

 

No need to change the Cardinal logo, especially not to the gray "Desert Cardinal". 

I also endorse this suggestion, but with one minor change.

 

I never liked the slapdash application of the Arizona flag to these uniforms following the move from St. Louis. It needlessly muddies what is an otherwise clean look. 

[Gothamite]

1 hour ago, Survival79 said:

 

missed opportunity.  I tend to favor the left one, myself. 
 

I really love their updated logo, but the miscolored beak still bothers me. 

[oldschoolvikings]

[TheOatsMustFlow]

In all my life in Arizona, I’ve never seen a desert cardinal. I’ve seen several all red northern cardinals though.

[OnWis97]

2 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Mariners? They strike me as a frequently-changed uniform. Colors and logos, too, as far as that goes. 

I was thinking of the current logo and colors that they have stuck with since about the time the White Sox (a team that used to change a lot).  But I suppose the Mariners have had more uniform variations in that time.

[Survival79]

20 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

[the_grateful_ted]

To me, none of those look good. The current cardinal is an excellent looking logo, one of the better in the NFL imo. I’ll echo the guy above me, living in AZ for over two decades I’ve NEVER seen a desert cardinal and I doubt most Arizonans have as well. Plenty of normal looking cardinals around AZ though, especially in the north. Why change what’s not broken?

[Brian in Boston]

6 hours ago, _DietDrPepper_ said:

Personally I think it looks awful, the craftsmanship is great but the gradients, use of grey and copper, the super busy alternate, none of it works for the Cardinals. Recolor the logo to what it is now and I think it's a phenomenal update but the uniforms are a hard pass for me. 

 

The Cardinals need to bring back the St. Louis set, the 70s Cardinals in particular. That's a gorgeous uniform that's could be updated beautifully.

I can't speak for @mcrosby, but I didn't interpret the gradient effect in the concept as a range of colors. Rather, I took it to represent the use of a copper-colored metallic finish/fabric on those portions of the uniform.

As for the use of grey and copper as part of the team's color scheme in this concept, they speak to the culture, economy, and fauna of the state that now plays host to the franchise... and has since 1988. Which strikes me as a positive thing.

The State of Arizona has played host to the Cardinals for 32 NFL campaigns. That's four more seasons than the franchise spent in St. Louis. In seven more seasons (eight if you count the pair of home games they played at Comiskey Park as part of the 1944 Card-Pitt merger), the Cardinals' time in Arizona will even surpass the team's tenure as a Chicago-based NFL outfit. That being the case, perhaps it's time to throw the current market and fanbase a bone with regard to branding that moves beyond simply popping Arizona state flags onto the sleeves of one of the team's two jerseys, or a decal of said flag onto the back of the helmet.

Further, while I know that many people are likely of the mind that the Cardinals' 2005 makeover was a case of 21st century sports design excess, is the only way to move on from the uniforms of the last 15 seasons to engage in an overcorrection that aesthetically locks the team to St. Louis, Missouri circa the 1970s?  After relocating twice, I don't necessarily know that the Cardinals' history is so sacrosanct, particularly during the 28 seasons in St. Louis, that the team's uniform design from said era has to be forever preserved in amber.     

I can certainly understand wanting to celebrate a team history that stretches back to the NFL's first season in 1920. To that end, what mcrosby proposes in his concept isn't an  abandonment of the Cardinals' brand. He's not advocating for a completely new team name like Phoenix Firebirds or Arizona Javelinas, with the wholesale changes in iconography and color palette that would likely go hand-in-hand with such a move. In point of fact, under his proposal, the franchise's nickname is retained, its primary logo remains the profile of a species of the team's avian mascot, and the principal color in its palette remains a deep red. I don't know whether mcrosby was aware of the fact or not, but even the alternate uniforms could be promoted as paying homage to the franchise's history: for 15 seasons between 1933 and 1954 the Cardinals wore dark blue road jerseys.  

The way I see it, the results of mcrosby's makeover strike me as artfully achieving the best of two worlds. They acknowledge the continuous existence of an NFL franchise that has been dubbed the Cardinals since 1920, while embracing design elements that represent the market that the franchise has called home for over three decades.

Oh, I'm also a fan of @oldschoolvikings's terrific Desert Cardinal-inspired update of the franchise's current primary logo.

[mjd77]

On 4/26/2020 at 12:14 PM, FinsUp1214 said:

I absolutely think they could pull that off, and pull it off well. I’d even be for some kind of stylized flag-inspired logo, around the same line of thinking as this Coyotes’ alt:

 

 

Not a state outline per se, but something flag-inspired that’s stylized in a similar fashion. 

 

I wouldn't mind seeing something like this as a chest patch, rather than trying to shoehorn the flag on the sleeve.  I thought it looked good when the Saints did it after Katrina.

[mjd77]

On 4/26/2020 at 8:05 AM, DNAsports said:

A couple more of those Seth Reese Bengals concepts along with some of his Vikings concept that I think @oldschoolvikings might like

 

 

 

He did have an all yellow CR, but as you may imagine, it looked horrendous.

 

Vikings would definitely look better in this darker shade of purple.

[simtek34]

7 hours ago, TheOatsMustFlow said:

What the Cardinals need to do is use this throwback design posted by jimmynutini.com (not sure of his CCSLC username):

 

 

Use the updated Cardinal bird of course. Keep the gray facemask. Have white socks with matching the stripes. For the red jersey, use a similar stripe scheme, no flag, and have a black outline for the white numbers. 

 

No need to change the Cardinal logo, especially not to the gray "Desert Cardinal". 

That would be @JimmyN64, back in 2017, in this thread here. I remember that because that was the first thread I ever posted in when I joined in 2017.

 

 

[mcrosby]

FWIW, the copper in my concept is metallic finish, not gradient. 

[_DietDrPepper_]

54 minutes ago, mcrosby said:

FWIW, the copper in my concept is metallic finish, not gradient. 

My mistake then, but I still stand by my point. 

2 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:

I can't speak for @mcrosby, but I didn't interpret the gradient effect in the concept as a range of colors. Rather, I took it to represent the use of a copper-colored metallic finish/fabric on those portions of the uniform.

As for the use of grey and copper as part of the team's color scheme in this concept, they speak to the culture, economy, and fauna of the state that now plays host to the franchise... and has since 1988. Which strikes me as a positive thing.

The State of Arizona has played host to the Cardinals for 32 NFL campaigns. That's four more seasons than the franchise spent in St. Louis. In seven more seasons (eight if you count the pair of home games they played at Comiskey Park as part of the 1944 Card-Pitt merger), the Cardinals' time in Arizona will even surpass the team's tenure as a Chicago-based NFL outfit. That being the case, perhaps it's time to throw the current market and fanbase a bone with regard to branding that moves beyond simply popping Arizona state flags onto the sleeves of one of the team's two jerseys, or a decal of said flag onto the back of the helmet.

Further, while I know that many people are likely of the mind that the Cardinals' 2005 makeover was a case of 21st century sports design excess, is the only way to move on from the uniforms of the last 15 seasons to engage in an overcorrection that aesthetically locks the team to St. Louis, Missouri circa the 1970s?  After relocating twice, I don't necessarily know that the Cardinals' history is so sacrosanct, particularly during the 28 seasons in St. Louis, that the team's uniform design from said era has to be forever preserved in amber.     

I can certainly understand wanting to celebrate a team history that stretches back to the NFL's first season in 1920. To that end, what mcrosby proposes in his concept isn't an  abandonment of the Cardinals' brand. He's not advocating for a completely new team name like Phoenix Firebirds or Arizona Javelinas, with the wholesale changes in iconography and color palette that would likely go hand-in-hand with such a move. In point of fact, under his proposal, the franchise's nickname is retained, its primary logo remains the profile of a species of the team's avian mascot, and the principal color in its palette remains a deep red. I don't know whether mcrosby was aware of the fact or not, but even the alternate uniforms could be promoted as paying homage to the franchise's history: for 15 seasons between 1933 and 1954 the Cardinals wore dark blue road jerseys.  

The way I see it, the results of mcrosby's makeover strike me as artfully achieving the best of two worlds. They acknowledge the continuous existence of an NFL franchise that has been dubbed the Cardinals since 1920, while embracing design elements that represent the market that the franchise has called home for over three decades.

Oh, I'm also a fan of @oldschoolvikings's terrific Desert Cardinal-inspired update of the franchise's current primary logo.

I think the main problem with the concept is that for a team that had relatively the same uniforms, same colors, same idea for 100 years, to suddenly switch everything up, is ridiculous and awful. But putting aside that, and putting it in a bubble where history doesn't matter, the unconventional alternate is awful, colors seen nowhere else in the palette harkens to Nike's fumble of the NBA's uniforms. If it's not a team color that appears nowhere  else in the identity, it shouldn't be on an alternate. The chest stripes don't work, and while a shiny material can work for a football uniform, I don't think it'll look anywhere as good as it does as the main pants material as a chest stripe. The next biggest offender are the rough shades of grey or sand he used, it looks like a mildewed beige, not sand like the Coyotes or Diamondbacks. Outside of the fact that I don't think the Cardinals should ever change from a white helmet, the rest of uniform, design wise, isn't horrible, but it's just not good.

Looking in a bubble, this set, besides from that alt that honestly can burn for all I care, isn't bad on its own, but when you realize it's for the over 100 year old Cardinals, then it's really bad. I'll repeat what I said earlier, the Cardinals looked the best in the 70s and should look like the 100 year old franchise they are, not some hoshposh of Nike experiments and modern trends, leave that to any expansion teams down the road. 

[mcrosby]

18 minutes ago, _DietDrPepper_ said:

My mistake then, but I still stand by my point. 

I think the main problem with the concept is that for a team that had relatively the same uniforms, same colors, same idea for 100 years, to suddenly switch everything up, is ridiculous and awful. But putting aside that, and putting it in a bubble where history doesn't matter, the unconventional alternate is awful, colors seen nowhere else in the palette harkens to Nike's fumble of the NBA's uniforms. If it's not a team color that appears nowhere  else in the identity, it shouldn't be on an alternate. The chest stripes don't work, and while a shiny material can work for a football uniform, I don't think it'll look anywhere as good as it does as the main pants material as a chest stripe. The next biggest offender are the rough shades of grey or sand he used, it looks like a mildewed beige, not sand like the Coyotes or Diamondbacks. Outside of the fact that I don't think the Cardinals should ever change from a white helmet, the rest of uniform, design wise, isn't horrible, but it's just not good.

Looking in a bubble, this set, besides from that alt that honestly can burn for all I care, isn't bad on its own, but when you realize it's for the over 100 year old Cardinals, then it's really bad. I'll repeat what I said earlier, the Cardinals looked the best in the 70s and should look like the 100 year old franchise they are, not some hoshposh of Nike experiments and modern trends, leave that to any expansion teams down the road. 

 

Ouch. I'll start with some hard disagreement in terms of NBA uniforms that stray from the teams' standard colors. Some of the best uniforms in the NBA are city edition. Utah, Miami, Toronto, and many more are all great looking uniforms that compliment the rest of the set, even if they are a different color. This is incredibly common in soccer around the world, and is only going to get more popular here. The idea of a 'city edition' or whatever you want to call it is something fans will latch onto. 

 

As far as the metallic numbers and shoulder stripes: It's been done before, sometimes successfully and sometimes looking pretty terrible. UCLA did a decent job of it, except for the lines cutting through and that miserable Adidas treadmark template. 

 

The grey/sand I used is just that. Desert cardinals are grey, but that felt very washed out so I adjusted a bit into sand. You may not like it, but I think it compliments the other colors well. 

And sure, the Cardinals have been around for 100 years, but they've been good for about 5 of them and have been an Arizona team for only 32 of those years and have played in one Super Bowl in those 32 years. The Cardinals in the desert are barely the Cardinals that took the field in Chicago for 20 odd years, or the Cardinals that played in St. Louis for nearly 30 years. This is a team that can take chances and switch up their uniforms. 

[Tracy MidGrady]

6 hours ago, _DietDrPepper_ said:

My mistake then, but I still stand by my point. 

I think the main problem with the concept is that for a team that had relatively the same uniforms, same colors, same idea for 100 years, to suddenly switch everything up, is ridiculous and awful. But putting aside that, and putting it in a bubble where history doesn't matter, the unconventional alternate is awful, colors seen nowhere else in the palette harkens to Nike's fumble of the NBA's uniforms. If it's not a team color that appears nowhere  else in the identity, it shouldn't be on an alternate. The chest stripes don't work, and while a shiny material can work for a football uniform, I don't think it'll look anywhere as good as it does as the main pants material as a chest stripe. The next biggest offender are the rough shades of grey or sand he used, it looks like a mildewed beige, not sand like the Coyotes or Diamondbacks. Outside of the fact that I don't think the Cardinals should ever change from a white helmet, the rest of uniform, design wise, isn't horrible, but it's just not good.

Looking in a bubble, this set, besides from that alt that honestly can burn for all I care, isn't bad on its own, but when you realize it's for the over 100 year old Cardinals, then it's really bad. I'll repeat what I said earlier, the Cardinals looked the best in the 70s and should look like the 100 year old franchise they are, not some hoshposh of Nike experiments and modern trends, leave that to any expansion teams down the road. 

I think you're overestimating the Cardinals brand

[JamieRose]

14 hours ago, TheOatsMustFlow said:

What the Cardinals need to do is use this throwback design posted by jimmynutini.com (not sure of his CCSLC username):

 

 

Use the updated Cardinal bird of course. Keep the gray facemask. Have white socks with matching the stripes. For the red jersey, use a similar stripe scheme, no flag, and have a black outline for the white numbers. 

 

No need to change the Cardinal logo, especially not to the gray "Desert Cardinal". 

 

I agree, but only if they pay me for the idea or something.

[PrimalCookie]

16 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

I loved this set. The red shirt would need a little something, but the helmet, pant stripe, and color balance are all A+ to me:

 

Sure, it’s plain, but the home jersey is just about what you’d expect for the oldest team in the NFL. They should look the part. I’d even be fine if they kept the mismatching home and away, keeping the stripes but not the flag.