Recommended Posts

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:

 

OIP.LqteuL5-M-ZmAKwPGL7kmgHaE6?pid=Api&r

OIP.sH8i22pRsOHH0Nqjd9oHLQHaJQ?pid=Api&r

 

 

 

 

I agree, I think this is the classic look. A modern iteration of this would be my personal preference. 

 

I'd do more of a metallic grey facemask. I'd keep the jersey entirely deep red, and I know this is probably an unpopular idea but I'd have some sort of subtle self-stripe style pattern in the red jersey to give it something modern without breaking the classic silhouette. Whether it be the state flag shape or a cardinal's wings or something similar on the sleeve cap and/or shoulders.

 

I'd keep the numbers, TV numbers a classic block and solid white. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Survival79 said:

 

wrMAsS9.png

Something about the black pupil looks odd here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mcrosby said:

 

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. 

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree, I'm a big traditionalist, especially when it comes to a team that's over 100 years old, whether the team was good or not doesn't matter. 

 

Also I think all of the NBA uniforms you mentioned don't look good at all and are big downgrades from their current sets, honestly I don't understand how anyone can like them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely think the Cards could pull off a plain red jersey with only white numbers on it. If that's too plain just rip off Stanford and add a thin black outline to the numbers. Although I've lived in the valley for about a year and a half now and honestly, the Cards stick out as being the most boring identity in sports here. I don't mind that because I think the oldest franchise in football should be conservative, but they just feel out of place to me being as boring as they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Brian in Boston said:


I was just on my way over to this thread to sing the praises of @mcrosby's Arizona Cardinals concept.

As I said over in the Concepts section, I think this retooling of the Cardinals' brand is absolutely phenomenal.

The makeover checks all the boxes. It retains the team nickname that has adorned the franchise for 99 of its 100 seasons in the NFL, while adopting a species of its namesake mascot that fits the market which the team has called home for the last 32 years. It dares to be bold, yet manages to feel timeless. Perhaps most impressive to me - someone who normally looks askance at the necessity of alternate uniforms - it includes a third set that is so striking and perfect for the market, I would buy the jersey in an instant.      

To my mind, this is - hands down - the best Arizona Cardinals concept I've ever seen.   

As someone who has been living in arizona for the last 15 years I think that this could be a great place to start the conversation.  I even wouldn't mind going the AZ Dback route of Red, bit of black, sand and turquoise (as an accent color).  The Cardinals did a dia de los muertos poster last fall with turquoise outlines around the bird and it looked outstanding!  

Share this post


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

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?

To my surprise I have seen quite a few northern red cardinals in the Rio Rico/Nogales area near the borderlands.  I think I have seen a cardinal in almost each part of the state I have been or lived in.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love that Jake Plummer Pat Tillman era look. I would play Madden '99-03 Franchise mode as the Cards just to play with these uniforms :)

 

I would love a modern update to that look, kinda like what the Jays did in MLB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd definitely gotta with the one on the left. IDK about a full time replacement, but it sure would make a heckuva color rush while embracing their location yet still staying true to the franchises roots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dessert cardinal looks like a senior citizen cardinal. They are the oldest franchise, but do we need the logo looking like it is in a wheelchair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, beachperroAZ said:

The Cardinals did a dia de los muertos poster last fall with turquoise outlines around the bird and it looked outstanding!  

 

Cp4Lrpf.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just ditch the white entirely, and go with a sandy brown/khaki color since they're in the desert? Bring back the 1990-95 style uniforms with khaki, and fix the red jerseys so they match the white ones (black borders around ##s, logo/flag on sleeve, TV numbers on shoulders.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just my two cents on the Cardinals, and this is purely just my opinion:

 

I’m very much a “ship has sailed” kind of guy when it comes to some branding stuff; by that, I mean if a team hasn’t made the kind of radical change some clamor for after years and years, they shouldn’t have to suddenly make it now. The Utah Jazz, established red and blue MLB teams, and the Arizona Cardinals fall into this category for me. Each had thier early opportunities to make radical changes, never really did and have established new histories with what they have (yes, the Cards wear modern uniforms, but they kept bones of the classic feel around, opting to only modernize the classic cardinal rather than replace it with something entirely different and keeping the white helmet. I don’t consider it a total, radical rebrand). 

 

As for the claim the Cardinals don’t have a good enough history to honor? Being a 100+ year old franchise in and of itself is still a massive achievement and something worth celebrating on its own. If the rest of your history is so bad, why not hang your hat on your longevity instead? Just redirect the attention to that fact rather than win/loss and I think traditional is plenty justified.
 

That’s ultimately why I still call for the Cardinals to keep it traditional, because I still think kicking around for a century-plus on its own is worth honoring and to throw that away entirely and act like that doesn’t matter somehow would be a shame. I don’t know, it’s kind of charmingly resilient for a franchise to struggle for decades, cross the country over two moves, but never fold and still be up and at it. The same couldn’t be said for plenty of professional sports franchises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cards dropped the ball not doing the throwback white uniform for their color rush instead of another black jersey. Those would have sold like hot cakes.

Share this post


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

Why not just ditch the white entirely, and go with a sandy brown/khaki color since they're in the desert? Bring back the 1990-95 style uniforms with khaki, and fix the red jerseys so they match the white ones (black borders around ##s, logo/flag on sleeve, TV numbers on shoulders.)

Actually they could go the D-backs route and use dark red and sand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

It looks like Carolina may have fixed the tv number sizing issue?

 

Just have to wait and see when and if the 2020 season starts.  Also not sure if sizing dimensions matter when it comes to the official style guides

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FinsUp1214 said:

Just my two cents on the Cardinals, and this is purely just my opinion:

 

I’m very much a “ship has sailed” kind of guy when it comes to some branding stuff; by that, I mean if a team hasn’t made the kind radical change some clamor for after years and years, they shouldn’t have to suddenly make it now. The Utah Jazz, established red and blue MLB teams, and the Arizona Cardinals fall into this category for me. Each had thier early opportunities to make radical changes, never really did and have established new histories with what they have (yes, the Cards wear modern uniforms, but they kept bones of the classic feel around, opting to only modernize the classic cardinal rather than replace it with something entirely different and keeping the white helmet. I don’t consider it a total, radical rebrand). 

 

As for the claim the Cardinals don’t have a good enough history to honor? Being a 100+ year old franchise in and of itself is still a massive achievement and something worth celebrating on its own. If the rest of your history is so bad, why not hang your hat on your longevity instead? Just redirect the attention to that fact rather than win/loss and I think traditional is plenty justified.
 

That’s ultimately why I still call for the Cardinals to keep it traditional, because I still think kicking around for a century-plus on its own is worth honoring and to throw that away entirely and act like that doesn’t matter somehow would be a shame. I don’t know, it’s kind of charmingly resilient for a franchise to struggle for decades, cross the country over two moves, but never fold and still be up and at it. The same couldn’t be said for plenty of professional sports franchises.


I couldn't agree less.

To the "ship has sailed" argument against the Arizona Cardinals changing up their look, I say, "Malarkey!"

It's been said that the one constant in life is change. That's true even in the world of sports branding. The looks of professional sports franchises change. This is a fact. The logos, colors, design elements of the uniforms... they're all subject to change. Sometimes the changes accompany new ownership taking the helm of the franchise. Sometimes the changes go hand-in-hand with relocation to a new market. Sometimes the changes are meant to put the specter of a losing era behind a team. Sometimes the changes are made with little more than  an eye towards stimulating the sale of licensed product. Sometimes the changes take place fairly early in a team's existence, sometimes after decades have passed. Frankly, the reasons for sports branding changes are beside the point. 

There was a time when the Green Bay Packers opting to wear green actually constituted a break with tradition. There were years in which the Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, and Los Angeles Rams donned red. The "Orange Crush" nickname wouldn't have made any sense in Denver in the early 1960s. There were seasons when the San Francisco 49ers were decked out in red and silver, while the Oakland Raiders were taking the field in black and athletic gold. And, in the wake of the Patriots unveiling new uniforms last week, there were members of this community wondering why the team didn't take the opportunity to return red to a place of prominence in their palette. After all, hadn't the Pats placed the color front-and-center in their identity for more than three decades?

As for the Cardinals, they've worn jerseys in at least five different shades of red over their 100-plus years. Trotted out blue jerseys in at least 18 seasons, as well. Plus, white jerseys and a decade's worth of black alternate jerseys. Helmets? They've been primarily white, but the Cards also donned a number of different shades of solid red helmets, as well as lids that combined red with either white or gray. Hell, they sported red helmets as late as 1957. And for those who would bemoan the prospect of tan and/or gray being "introduced" into the Cardinals' color palette, please understand that is "the ship that  has sailed". If a pro football franchise has been kicking around for anywhere close to a century, it is a virtual certainty that said team's players sported some shade of beige/ecru/eggshell/khaki/tan or gray pants during - at the very least - the first decade of the club's existence. The Cardinals? They had 17 NFL seasons under their belts before said belts were holding up white knickers. And there were a dozen years when striping/piping of tan or gray appeared on their jerseys.

Now, with regard to the "massive achievement" that is the Cardinals' 100-plus years of existence... well, it is and it isn't. Yes, the franchise's lineage as a business entity traces back to the team that took the field in Chicago, Illinois in 1920. And the longevity of the franchise should be recognized. I'm sure there are NFL history buffs who do just that. Still, the heart is only going to race so fast while cheering, "Hey, check out the date on this franchise certificate!"  

The Cardinals are a team that has twice pulled-up stakes and relocated. It wasn't a franchise covered in glory that opted to move from Chicago to St. Louis. It was a team on the verge of bankruptcy. A team that had mustered a record of 155-258-25 over 40 seasons. A team that had a disputed, "named" NFL Championship in 1925 to its credit. A team whose 1947 and '48 seasons - which, admittedly, included a legitimate NFL championship win in '47 - were the lone true bright points in the midst of a moribund 40-year run, 27 under Bidwill Family ownership. When owner Violet Bidwill - who'd been left the team upon her husband's death - remarried to a St. Louis businessman, the writing was on the wall. To paraphrase Shakespeare: "Exit, pursued by 'Da Bears'"... who'd long since overshadowed the Cardinals. 

It wasn't a triumphant franchise that ditched St. Louis for the Valley of the Sun. The team was the second-most beloved Cardinals franchise in St. Louis from the get-go. Barely five years into their tenure in St. Louis, Bill and Charles "Sonny" Bidwill - unhappy with playing second-fiddle to the baseball Cardinals in the hearts and minds of local fans, as well as growing tired of Sportsman's Park as a venue - were already rumored to be eyeing a move to Atlanta. Local political leadership was able to get the Bidwills to commit to staying in St. Louis with the promise of what would become Busch Memorial Stadium. Still, when owners are already considering a relocation to another market just five years after moving to your city, let's just say that's not the sign of a relationship forged in steel. By 1972, Bill Bidwill had bought out his brother. Over the next 16 seasons, the Cardinals would go 107-125-4 under Bill Bidwill's stewardship, good for an overall mark in St. Louis of 186-202-14. The mid-1970s were the high-point for the team, with a pair of divisional titles and trips to the playoffs. It wasn't enough. The football Cardinals could never quite outshine their baseball brethren. Busch Stadium, though only 20 or so years old, began to show its age. Bidwill started to cast his gaze towards other markets to play host to his NFL franchise. The Phoenix area landed the prize.

Here's the tough thing about selling the "massive achievement" of 100 years of Cardinals NFL history and tradition to the team's current market: 68% of that history and tradition took place somewhere else. A great deal of it, took place an awfully long time ago.

Sixty seasons have come and gone since a Cardinals football squad last took the field as the home team in  Chicago. Those who would truly long for the good ol' days of Chicago Cardinals football have not only moved on, they've likely passed on. Thirty-two NFL seasons have rolled by since the St. Louis Cardinals trotted onto the gridiron. While I'll concede that there are clearly more people who were fans of the St. Louis Cardinals still drawing breath, I'm not certain that they're at all invested in the fortunes of the Arizona Cardinals. After all, when you think about how the St. Louis market has been treated by the National Football League since 1987, I'm going to guess that most football fans from "The Gateway City" - those of the St. Louis Cardinals, included -  would just as soon tell Roger Goodell to get bent, as waste energy focusing on whether or not the Arizona Cardinals are upholding, preserving, and advancing the legacy that the franchise established prior to arriving in the Valley of the Sun.                 

And actual Arizona Cardinals fans? My gut tells me that the majority don't spend a great deal of time focusing on 100-plus years of NFL Cardinals football. I'm sure that most know that the team's presence in Arizona is the result of a franchise being relocated from St. Louis. I don't doubt that some are even aware that the team played in Chicago prior to moving to St. Louis. That said, I just don't believe that a significant number of Arizona Cardinals fans are deeply invested in the team's history stretching back to Chicago. I don't buy that they're at all well-versed in what the team accomplished in St. Louis. Rather, for all intents and purposes, I see most Arizona Cardinals fans as people rooting for what amounts to being a 32-year-old NFL franchise that represents the Grand Canyon State.

I mean, I suppose that I could be wrong. Maybe Arizona Cardinals pre-game tailgates are peppered with mentions of Driscoll, Trippi, Hart and Dierdorf. Perhaps the pro shop can't keep Goldberg, Matson, Lane and Wehrli jerseys in stock. For all I know, whenever Kliff Kingsbury engages in questionable play-calling, countless Arizona Cardinals fans are grousing, "You wouldn't have seen Conzelman or Coryell make that call!" 😉

There are plenty of sports franchises that I feel should very carefully consider the ramifications of straying too far away from their traditional branding history - as well as their team heritage - while even contemplating a uniform change. Frankly, I don't think the Arizona Cardinals is one of them.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Brian in Boston said:


I couldn't agree less.

*the rest snipped for space*
  


Hey that’s fine, you’re entitled to your opinions! I couldn’t agree to disagree more! ;) 

 

To save space I’ll be brief, but I think a lot of this comes down to difference in opinion and interpretation rather than right/wrong. For example, the Packers’ color changes were technically a break with tradition, yes, but they did so before the advent of color television - a massive difference maker in branding - and that change did not hold the same expansive branding ramifications then that a team rebranding today would. I thus see the Packers changes vs. a Cardinals radical change today as being apples and oranges. That’s not saying you’re wrong at all; it is indeed a fact the Packers changed colors, and I absolutely see where you’re coming from. I’m just saying that I interpret that case as being different than if the Cardinals were to do something drastic now due to the ramifications being different. 
 

As for the argument against celebrating all of the Cardinals’ longevity just because a lot of it took place elsewhere? The present Arizona Cardinals honor the franchise’s entire history already. Thier ring of honor includes Chicago, St. Louis, and Arizona figures together. If we’re wondering whether or not pre-Arizona history matters? The team itself seems to think so, or else they wouldn’t bother acknowledging it to the degree they do now. I can’t speak at all for Cardinals fans, but I’m a fan of two teams that had relocated previously - the Jazz and Colts - and thier history elsewhere still matters to me as a fan because both teams, in their own way of honoring it, say it matters. So from my own personal perspective, unless a team outright severs the link altogether, the history is worth acknowledging no matter where it took place, especially if said team does exactly that already.
 

Again, these are all just opinions and different interpretations, and I respect yours and where you’re coming from. I just see nearly every point a bit differently, is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.