NFL Changes 2021

[spartacat_12]

On 5/22/2021 at 11:30 PM, Chromatic said:

The thing about the Jets is they already have their city rival in the Giants using an NY as a helmet logo, and this is with a much harder to depict name.

 

"Jets" has the potential for something strong, dynamic and creative, yet they opt for a wordblock.

^ This

 

I don't think that the Winnipeg Jets current logo is perfect, but I appreciate that when they got the team back they put an actual jet front & center instead of just using one of their old wordmarks. 

[BBTV]

14 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

^ This

 

I don't think that the Winnipeg Jets current logo is perfect, but I appreciate that when they got the team back they put an actual jet front & center instead of just using one of their old wordmarks. 

 

It's naïve to compare the New York brand to the Winnipeg brand.  When you play in the most famous city in North America, your nickname or mascot should be secondary, and IMO is just something to have for merch purposes.  Your brand should be that you play in New York.  I think it was a mistake (though I understand why) when the Giants and Jets moved away from the NY branding in the '80s, and also when the Islanders moved to the cartoon fisherman logo.

 

The New York brand has appeal internationally, and also nationally - I'm sure there's people that would wear a Jets shirt that was based on NY imagery rather than one that was clearly just the football team.

[flyersfan]

To further the NY branding argument, Think New York Knicks. I couldn't tell you what a Knickerbocker is, but they're a legendary team because of history and New York.

 

The Jets current uniforms are okay, I think the black alts are unneeded with the dark green, but I can live with them. I like the stripe being unique, not a gimmick, and fits the modern look.

 

I wish there was some sort of jet (or branding hint) in the logo, since their logo hasn't reached identifiable icon status (which allows skipping the actual team name) like the Bears and Cowboys. We have to read the word Jets to know its them, unless you're plugged in to the uniform design community like us all.

 

A bit gaudy with the gradient, but I liked the Memphis Express helmet logo (worn by Jets legend Christian Hackenberg)

[spartacat_12]

3 hours ago, BBTV said:

It's naïve to compare the New York brand to the Winnipeg brand.  When you play in the most famous city in North America, your nickname or mascot should be secondary, and IMO is just something to have for merch purposes.  Your brand should be that you play in New York.  I think it was a mistake (though I understand why) when the Giants and Jets moved away from the NY branding in the '80s, and also when the Islanders moved to the cartoon fisherman logo.

 

The New York brand has appeal internationally, and also nationally - I'm sure there's people that would wear a Jets shirt that was based on NY imagery rather than one that was clearly just the football team.

 

The NYC metro area currently has 2 NFL teams, 2 NBA teams, 2 MLB teams, 3 NHL teams, 2 MLS teams, and a WNBA team. Having your brand be "we play in New York" is hardly original, especially since if you were to ask people around the world to name a sports team from NYC the Jets would probably be the 4th or 5th one that would come to mind.

 

The Yankees, Mets, Knicks, Giants, Rangers, Islanders, Liberty, & NYCFC all have fairly vague nicknames, so it makes sense for them to lean into the New York-centric branding. Jets is a much more tangible nickname, and is fitting considering the area is home to 3 of the busiest airports in the country.

 

If they want to sell NY merchandise to tourists who don't know what football is, they can, but their primary brand should be a little more than "We're the New York football team. No, not that one. The green one."

[tBBP]

As long as we're discussing green (that IS what we're discussing, right? ), I still have yet to see a team do it better than the Saskatchewan Rough Riders--from a color shade perspective, anyway:

 

 

 

 

If you're gonna go green, that's how you go green...go all the way green, not just some of the way.  Get the shade right and you won't need an ounce of black (or gray or silver or "anthracite") to add to the mix--just let that lovely shade of green shine all on its own.   

 

That's what the Jets should have done, I say...go ALL the way green.  (Plus they're literally the only major NY team that doesn't use some form of red, blue or orange--or black, if you want to include the Nets--so just for that fact alone they stand out.)

[Claystation360]

Wasn't there talk when one of them ( Giants or Jets ) moved to Jersey they were gonna take on the NJ moniker but obviously decided against it.  

[Indigo]

1 hour ago, Claystation360 said:

Wasn't there talk when one of them ( Giants or Jets ) moved to Jersey they were gonna take on the NJ moniker but obviously decided against it.  

Probably the Jets. “New Jersey Jets” is one of those alliterations the big 4 sports love.

(As the board’s New Jersey representative, I support this move).

[O.C.D]

5 hours ago, flyersfan said:

To further the NY branding argument, Think New York Knicks. I couldn't tell you what a Knickerbocker is, but they're a legendary team because of history and New York.

 

The Jets current uniforms are okay, I think the black alts are unneeded with the dark green, but I can live with them. I like the stripe being unique, not a gimmick, and fits the modern look.

 

I wish there was some sort of jet (or branding hint) in the logo, since their logo hasn't reached identifiable icon status (which allows skipping the actual team name) like the Bears and Cowboys. We have to read the word Jets to know its them, unless you're plugged in to the uniform design community like us all.

 

A bit gaudy with the gradient, but I liked the Memphis Express helmet logo (worn by Jets legend Christian Hackenberg)

This is a prime example of how much potential exists in using actual jet imagery as a design element. The Jets could make a truly iconic helmet logo. The design possibilities are so vast.

[4_tattoos]

1 hour ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

Probably the Jets. “New Jersey Jets” is one of those alliterations the big 4 sports love.

(As the board’s New Jersey representative, I support this move).

I remember a time before the Madden video game franchise was licensed to use NFL team names, the Jets were called "New Jersey". Also the (at the time) LA Raiders were called "Oakland".

[BJ Sands]

I always liked this Jets logo. Combined the classic Jets shape with a NY logo and is more than distinct from the Giants.

[BBTV]

Put it on the helmet and call it a day. Maybe the jet gimmick from above the wordmarks on the 80s helmet would work over the NY too. 

[DCarp1231]

11 hours ago, BJ Sands said:

I always liked this Jets logo. Combined the classic Jets shape with a NY logo and is more than distinct from the Giants.

Every time I see this logo, it makes me think it’s some generic knock off shirt that I can buy from some swindler on any corner in New York City and the shirt has some obvious misspelling like “The New York Jats”

[AndrewMLind]

I've long viewed the Jets as New Jersey's team thanks to Madden 92 on SEGA, which was the first football video game I remember playing.

[BBTV]

4 hours ago, DNAsports said:

Every time I see this logo, it makes me think it’s some generic knock off shirt that I can buy from some swindler on any corner in New York City and the shirt has some obvious misspelling like “The New York Jats”

 

I think that's more on you than it is the logo.  I don't see how it's any more/less knockoffable than any Yankees, Giants, or Mets mark.

[MCM0313]

On 5/26/2021 at 12:00 PM, Sec19Row53 said:

Very true.

If I go back to the beginning of this, I could be convinced that there is too much black used in the alternate (pretty obvious statement, I think, but bear with me). All that black hides the green, and doesn't allow for contrast. That may be where we were actually in agreement initially.

All that said, I'd still prefer 'no black' as opposed to 'some black', as I don't think it's needed in the Jets' uniform.

Maybe one reason I like the black trim is that, in a vacuum (forgetting about team performance and culture in the different eras), I like their 1990-97 look, with the addition of green pants and black facemask and trim, better than the Gastineau-era look, which has always struck me as a bit too plain. Could be because I became a football fan in 1993 and thus that look was what I was first accustomed to for them. 

[DCarp1231]

36 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

I think that's more on you than it is the logo.  I don't see how it's any more/less knockoffable than any Yankees, Giants, or Mets mark.

That’s the thing. The Giants, Mets, and Yankees “NY”s are noticeably more iconic and easily distinguishable. The Jets “NY” feels like the team keeps trying to play catch-up and they constantly trip over their own feet.

[WSU151]

Just now, DNAsports said:

That’s the thing. The Giants, Mets, and Yankees “NY”s are noticeably more iconic and easily distinguishable. The Jets “NY” feels like the team keeps trying to play catch-up and they constantly trip over their own feet.

 

You put the Jets' modern NY on a helmet and even make it the primary logo, and it'll be more iconic and/or distinguishable in a hurry. 

 

Any NFL primary mark is pretty distinguishable considering the popularity of the league. 

[AndrewMLind]

12 hours ago, DNAsports said:

That’s the thing. The Giants, Mets, and Yankees “NY”s are noticeably more iconic and easily distinguishable. The Jets “NY” feels like the team keeps trying to play catch-up and they constantly trip over their own feet.

 

The same thing would be said about the Giants, Mets and Yankees' monograms if they were introduced today, though. They're only "iconic" because they've been around forever.

[WideRight]

Not a fan of the idea of the Jets joining the Giants by putting an "NY" monogram on the helmets.  Biggest city in the country and the best their two teams can do is a "NY"?  Pretty lame.  NFL helmet logos tend to represent the team name rather than the city, and the Jets, if they ditch the "JETS" logo should embrace that.  Unlike a giant, which is hard to depict in a logo, the Jets have an easy to depict, exciting, in-motion, aggressive team name and could maximize that rather than being just another NY team to rely on the NY monogram.  

 

I grew up on Long Island, and I will openly admit that one of the reasons I am a diehard Bills fan is that when I was a kid I thought the green helmet "JETS" and white on blue helmet"GIANTS" logos on the helmets were boring and lame, so I found the only other NY team and they had a cool charging Buffalo, which was so much cooler.   (Add to this Joe Ferguson's hail  mary vs the Pats in 1980 and then his playoff game v. San Diego when he played with a broken ankle and I was hooked on the Bills).  

 

[DCarp1231]

9 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

You put the Jets' modern NY on a helmet and even make it the primary logo, and it'll be more iconic and/or distinguishable in a hurry. 

In your humble opinion it might be.
 

I’m glad the Jets dropped the “NY” and would love for it to stay that way.