NFL Changes 2021

[Sport]

1 hour ago, DNAsports said:

 

I don’t understand the hate this logo gets. 10x better and a significant upgrade over its predecessor.

 

If you think it's 10x better then I'm not sure I can explain why one is good and the other isn't because that comes down to personal taste, but I'll try.

 

I don't want my sports logos to be photo-real depictions of the thing they represent because at that point you might as well just use a photograph of the animal as your logo. This is the emblem for your team, not just a depiction of the animal you're named after. I want the logo to be a logo because these aren't literally jaguars, they're a football franchise named the Jaguars. That's an important distinction. I want it to convey the subject in a sharp way while also being the instant identifier for that team. One of these accomplishes that, the other is an overly-detailed illustration reminiscent of the cheap images found on stock websites. One is a bespoke sports logo befitting a franchise in the National Football League, the other would look at home on the wall of a high school gymnasium. 

 

Fundamentally speaking the old logo is stronger, literally. Uses heavier, consistent line weights throughout, conveys motion, and manages to cast it all with a not so serious tone, which gives it a charm and character that the new one lacks. The new logo uses lines too thin, colors too many, and is just too literal for my liking. Is the new one mechanically better? Yes, but I don't always want mechanically better. Same reason I'd rather listen to a human play a guitar solo than listen to the same guitar solo played through Garage Band. When you get too technical and literal you lose some soul. Does that make sense? I want a logo a kid could effectively draw on his notebook, a logo that could be easily embroidered on a hat without losing too much detail. The current logo on the other hand is so detailed you need to be a studied artist to replicate it. 

 

[ManillaToad]

Jacksonville got it right with their first uniform, slowly made them worse piece by piece, then overhauled them for the worse multiple times in a desperate attempt at relevance and more revenue. Many such cases when it comes to expansion teams

[Sec19Row53]

22 hours ago, dont care said:

2 outlines is too many?

‘K you don’t have to like them, but they fit the overall set with the pointed numbers, and wordmark.

They can get rid of that easily with no real change to the overall set.

yea “chrome” was dumb to put on the shoulders but is barely visible and could get rid of them with little notice.

the pants had stripes they were just typical Nike pants stripes from this time period

2 outlines yes. But considering the number color and the jersey color are also different, you've got 4 colors lined up next to each other. That's too many.

 

If something could be gotten rid of with little notice, it was unnecessary to begin with.

Assuming those pants in that picture had stripes, you couldn't see them.

[PaleVermilion81]

20 minutes ago, heavybass said:

All the Jags logo needs is a white outline and it should be ok in my books.... but yeah I figure they need to go back to the original teal but make it blue-ish.... I found that out when I did the redesign for said Jags.

Some are probably not gonna like it but there is an appeal behind black/blueish teal/white/gold

 

When did the Jaguars change the teal? Are you talking about the original prototype that never got used?

[heavybass]

10 minutes ago, PaleVermilion81 said:

 

When did the Jaguars change the teal? Are you talking about the original prototype that never got used?

The Prototype Teal being 0,183,150... I'm talking about the first teal used which is 0, 103,127 which then around 2002 is when they changed it to the current teal used 0, 98, 113... the teal I found was in the 25th anniversary mark which is.... 0, 147, 178

[PaleVermilion81]

2 minutes ago, heavybass said:

The Prototype Teal being 0,183,150... I'm talking about the first teal used which is 0, 103,127 which then around 2002 is when they changed it to the current teal used 0, 98, 113... the teal I found was in the 25th anniversary mark which is.... 0, 147, 178

 

That doesn't mean their colors actually changed, though. Just might mean they adjusted the RGB version of their colors. Brands aren't based around RGB colors, and brands are often tweaking the digital versions to better reflect the pantone/print versions. Also it could mean the source graphics you found might have been saved out with a different color profile thus giving the graphic a slight color shift. All that to say RGB isn't trustworthy for brand colors. Need to find the official brand color guides (which are often pantone based).

[MCM0313]

4 hours ago, Sport said:

I can't ignore the dumbest looking helmet in NFL history because it was the biggest part of the whole uniform. Also, the logo was and continues to be a PROBLEM.

 

But here's my issues with the rest of that Jaguars set:

- The weird patterns and materials on the neck and shoulders, plus the shield logo on the chest were too much "this is what the troops would wear if they played football".

- But the single biggest thing signaling the faux military cosplay those uniforms were trying to evoke is that awful awful number font. That was absolutely hideous. 

- Teal should always be their primary jersey color. They accidentally got this correct when they used teal numbers on the white jersey, which is why the decision to use black numbers on the teal jersey is so baffling. 

- I have a pretty hard rule on that. Only in rare exceptions does a dark number work on a color jersey and the black numbers on the teal jersey violate that rule hard. It's the kind of decision amateur designers with poor taste make. Plus they're basically illegible from any distance. You cannot go wrong with white numbers. 

- I actually don't hate the pants stripe on its own, but it didn't really match with anything else in the uniform. Seeing the Bucs use a similar stripe around the same time makes it feel like someone in NFL properties just really wanted to stripe some pants like that at the time. 

- I don't have a problem with the contrasting color sleeves, but if you're going to use contrasting color sleeves then put the logo or numbers on the sleeve. If you fill the sleeve with something then the sleeve's differing color looks considered and thoughtful. When you leave them blank it looks like a college or high school team who was just handed a Nike template. 

- Every color is used in every part of the uniform, but it's not done elegantly the way the original uniform was. Every piece of the uniform is turned up to 11 and there's no visual focal point. There's no restraint, no thoughtful consideration for how each piece of the uniform would look with the others. It's like the helmets, jerseys, and pants were all designed by different people at different times who weren't allowed the see the others' work. And the person who designed the helmet was both blindfolded and high. The person who designed the logo works for stockvectorlogos.com.

 

I wish they'd made the super bowl while wearing it. It's pure, uncut, tasteless trash. I'm glad it's dead, and it would've been hilarious for it to be preserved on a stage like that for all-time. 

 

 

 

What’s wrong with the Jaguars’ logo? I think both the original and the current are fantastic!

[Sport]

11 minutes ago, MCM0313 said:

What’s wrong with the Jaguars’ logo? I think both the original and the current are fantastic!

 

The original is fantastic. My thoughts on the new one are above. In short, it's an over-designed, over-detailed illustration that sanitized away all the charm and character. 

 

The Bucs new logo has the same problem, come to think of it.  

[officeglenn]

2 hours ago, PaleVermilion81 said:

 

That doesn't mean their colors actually changed, though. Just might mean they adjusted the RGB version of their colors. Brands aren't based around RGB colors, and brands are often tweaking the digital versions to better reflect the pantone/print versions. Also it could mean the source graphics you found might have been saved out with a different color profile thus giving the graphic a slight color shift. All that to say RGB isn't trustworthy for brand colors. Need to find the official brand color guides (which are often pantone based).

 

According to our Friend of the CCSLC™ @TruColor, the Jaguars used Pantone 315C from 1995 to 2001, then changed ever so slightly to Pantone 3155C in 2002 and have been using that ever since. https://www.trucolor.net/portfolio/national-football-league-franchise-records-1920-through-present/

 

EDIT: Sorry, those were under "Franchise Colors". If you look at the "Proposed Franchise Colors" a bit further down, it also lists Pantone 808C and 3272C there.

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by officeglenn

[dont care]

2 hours ago, officeglenn said:

 

According to our Friend of the CCSLC™ @TruColor, the Jaguars used Pantone 315C from 1995 to 2001, then changed ever so slightly to Pantone 3155C in 2002 and have been using that ever since. https://www.trucolor.net/portfolio/national-football-league-franchise-records-1920-through-present/

 

EDIT: Sorry, those were under "Franchise Colors". If you look at the "Proposed Franchise Colors" a bit further down, it also lists Pantone 808C and 3272C there.

 

That doesn’t mean what that the textiles changed, just the colors as far as print did.

[seasaltvanilla]

Always thought an easy  improvement to the Jags logo is get rid of the shading and fur detail on the spots. Cleans it up without losing anything,

 

 

The old logo looks...concussed.

[PaleVermilion81]

17 minutes ago, seasaltvanilla said:

Always thought an easy  improvement to the Jags logo is get rid of the shading and fur detail on the spots. Cleans it up without losing anything,

 

 

The old logo looks...concussed.

 

That...actually looks really cool.

[⋔ 4 ℞ ℞ $]

The first logo DID do one thing better: A proper attempt at representation of jaguar rosettes (spots). The current one looks more leopard-like — dare I say even cheetah-esque, due to the solid dots, albeit in larger form — than jaguar.

[BadSeed84]

The only logo that got it right with changing is the Panthers logo.

Even then I question why the one eye is squinting more. But for the most part they did this one right.

 

[Sport]

There's a gaggle of issues with the Panthers update too. I like it better than the original, but it's really sloppy and has some really amateurish rough parts that should've been caught and corrected before it was approved as final. 

 

It's been a while, actually, since the NFL released a new logo for a team that I didn't find some fundamental basic error in the logo's construction.

 

[Indigo]

1 hour ago, Sport said:

It's been a while, actually, since the NFL released a new logo for a team that I didn't find some fundamental basic error in the logo's construction.

 

[Sport]

Just now, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

 

I like the updated bolt, but that bolt is hard to screw up. I'll give them credit for at least not overhauling something that only need a small adjustment. That font is no good, though. 

[BadSeed84]

19 minutes ago, Sport said:

 

I like the updated bolt, but that bolt is hard to screw up. I'll give them credit for at least not overhauling something that only need a small adjustment. That font is no good, though. 

 

The Rams horn is hard to screw up but they went ahead and still did!

[AFirestormToPurify]

On 10/19/2021 at 1:49 PM, Sport said:

 

If you think it's 10x better then I'm not sure I can explain why one is good and the other isn't because that comes down to personal taste, but I'll try.

 

I don't want my sports logos to be photo-real depictions of the thing they represent because at that point you might as well just use a photograph of the animal as your logo. This is the emblem for your team, not just a depiction of the animal you're named after. I want the logo to be a logo because these aren't literally jaguars, they're a football franchise named the Jaguars. That's an important distinction. I want it to convey the subject in a sharp way while also being the instant identifier for that team. One of these accomplishes that, the other is an overly-detailed illustration reminiscent of the cheap images found on stock websites. One is a bespoke sports logo befitting a franchise in the National Football League, the other would look at home on the wall of a high school gymnasium. 

 

Fundamentally speaking the old logo is stronger, literally. Uses heavier, consistent line weights throughout, conveys motion, and manages to cast it all with a not so serious tone, which gives it a charm and character that the new one lacks. The new logo uses lines too thin, colors too many, and is just too literal for my liking. Is the new one mechanically better? Yes, but I don't always want mechanically better. Same reason I'd rather listen to a human play a guitar solo than listen to the same guitar solo played through Garage Band. When you get too technical and literal you lose some soul. Does that make sense? I want a logo a kid could effectively draw on his notebook, a logo that could be easily embroidered on a hat without losing too much detail. The current logo on the other hand is so detailed you need to be a studied artist to replicate it. 

 

Most of what you said also applies to the discussion we've been having for the last few days over in the NHL thread about the Sharks old vs current logos lol. Someone actually made the comparison with the Jags in that thread, maybe it was you? But yeah, very well said, I wish I could like your post twice!

[VikWings]

8 hours ago, Sport said:

There's a gaggle of issues with the Panthers update too. I like it better than the original, but it's really sloppy and has some really amateurish rough parts that should've been caught and corrected before it was approved as final. 

 

It's been a while, actually, since the NFL released a new logo for a team that I didn't find some fundamental basic error in the logo's construction.

 

 

The most amateur thing I ever saw with a professional logo was the Bucs new ship logo from the alarm clock era had the mast in front of the sail. And it took them five years to correct it. Like how was that missed?