NFL Changes 2021

[WSU151]

36 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

I certainly think it would work better than other logos because it's more narrow and horizontal, but I still don't think it would look good. It's still forcing something into too small of a space.  

 

These linemen barely have room for the swoosh, which would have to share space with that jaguar. Removing the black cuff wouldn't make a difference. Frankly, these jerseys are better off unadorned. 

 

For whatever reason, the swoosh is way down on the sleeve, away from the seam. Compare the swoosh placement of the Jags' jerseys vs the pics of the Vikings or Bucs.

[gosioux76]

14 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

For whatever reason, the swoosh is way down on the sleeve, away from the seam. Compare the swoosh placement of the Jags' jerseys vs the pics of the Vikings or Bucs.

 

The placement of the swoosh doesn't make a difference. You can place it an inch higher, but you're still asking that Swoosh to share a space three inches high with, what, a three-inch-wide patch? The jaguar might as well be wearing the swoosh as a hat.

 

You're still squeezing two competing visual elements into a space barely big enough for one. If the idea is to look good, then forcing a bunch of things into a super small space is the wrong way to do it. 

[Gobbi]

11 hours ago, Justpassingby said:

Good morning. So that thing I said a few weeks ago? Yeah the team Bezos is buying will become public knowledge in the next ten days. No I won’t tell you how I know this so don’t even bother asking. But when it starts circulating I look forward to speculating with you all what the new uniforms will look like. 

Won’t be long now...

 

 

 

 

[selgy]

6 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

A couple weeks ago @Justpassingby said it wouldn't be Washington, it'd be another team that will be owned by Bezos. 

Asking cause I don't know the rules.

But could he own a team while being a major broadcast partner? Might cause some possible conflicts. 

[Brian in Boston]

On 3/21/2021 at 4:57 PM, tBBP said:

Let me get us back on topic.

 

Y'all really wanna know what greatness is?

 

Here...

 

 

 

 

That's greatness...uniform greatness, that is.

 

(It still ain't too late, Jacksonville...)

Fixed that for you. (The other four uniform combos pictured in the original post were an affront to the aesthetic greatness on display here.)

[BBTV]

11 minutes ago, selgy said:

Asking cause I don't know the rules.

But could he own a team while being a major broadcast partner? Might cause some possible conflicts. 

 

He's stepping down as CEO and becoming "executive chairman".  He'll still be involved, but maybe the change makes him compliant with NFL rules?

[Brian in Boston]

6 hours ago, Sport said:

They should just go back to exactly what they were wearing in 1998.

 

Bingo! The uniforms that the Jaguars sported from 1998 through 2001 were their best attire ever.   

[Justpassingby]

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

He's stepping down as CEO and becoming "executive chairman".  He'll still be involved, but maybe the change makes him compliant with NFL rules?

It does.

[DCarp1231]

Washington is reportedly “warming up” to the Football Team name as its permanent choice going forward

[ptay]

14 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

Washington is reportedly “warming up” to the Football Team name as its permanent choice going forward

 

I do get the appeal (feels classic and old school) and if the on-field product continues to improve then it could work.

 

But man, any time someone calls them 'The Football Team' I want to vomit. Will always feel like a placeholder name to me. 

[DCarp1231]

6 minutes ago, ptaylor said:

 

I do get the appeal (feels classic and old school) and if the on-field product continues to improve then it could work.

 

But man, any time someone calls them 'The Football Team' I want to vomit. Will always feel like a placeholder name to me. 

IIRC, when the team announced the temporary identity, they did it in a way as to not get fans too attached to it...

 

[Sport]

17 hours ago, LA Fakers+ LA Snippers said:

The Buccaneers’ logo is dumb?

 

It's adequate, but the new pirate ship logo and the flag logo compared to the original set from the 90's redesign? Yes, very dumb. Overly detailed, too clean, and somehow stripped of the character and statement made by the original. The original looked like it was lifted off a treasure map, it matched the feelings and ideas associated with the uniform. Conveys more attitude and says more in way fewer lines. The new one looks like it was lifted off a stock website or like something you'd see on paper plates for a kids' pirate themed birthday party. It and the Jaguars redesigned logo (not to mention questionable wardrobe decisions around the league around that time) are representative of the larger problems going on in the NFL design office. 

[PlayGloria]

2 hours ago, ptaylor said:

 

I do get the appeal (feels classic and old school) and if the on-field product continues to improve then it could work.

 

But man, any time someone calls them 'The Football Team' I want to vomit. Will always feel like a placeholder name to me. 

 

I get this sentiment, but TBH even if they come up with a great name, it still wont feel right. Putting all debate of racism to the side, they are forever etched in my brain as the (Washington Football Team). That is kind of why i actually like "the football team." Giving them a different name at this point feels so gimmicky to me. As if they need a name just to make sure they have a mascot and so they can plaster an animal head on the helmet.

[jc...]

Calling it "Football Team" is just a reminder of what the old name is. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

1 minute ago, jc... said:

Calling it "Football Team" is just a reminder of what the old name is. 

 

I see it both ways.

 

But, ultimately, I like the simplicity of calling it WFT and the recognition that we call it WFT because the old name was a slur. It's not really the worst thing to remind ourselves we have a new name because we previously had a terrible name.

[Sport]

Calling the team anything other than Reds**** will be a reminder of what the old name was. If you stick with WFT, which is so unusual as far as football naming convention goes, then it provides an opportunity to teach about why the old name couldn't continue. If you call them the Washington Redhawkz! then it feels like you're trying to brush it under the rug. 

 

I'm more than okay with keeping the official name as WFT and letting fans come up with an alternate, organic nickname (as long as that isn't Reds**** ) the way so many soccer clubs in Europe came to form their identities. I like "Washington Football Team" as the formal name and Hogs as the colloquial nickname that fans can chant and TV anchors can say in highlights without sounding goofy. 

 

I don't like the numbers on the side of the helmet, though. That felt very rushed and ill-considered. Put a W there, put the stripes back on the helmet (the stripes weren't the racist part lol, why were they removed?) and you've got a solid identity. 

[Lights Out]

This is beyond dumb. The league should have forced them to pick a real name before last season.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

7 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

This is beyond dumb. The league should have forced them to pick a real name before last season.

 

But perhaps "Washington Football Team" is a real name.

 

If, as @Sport suggests, something organic arises, all the better. That's how it used to be in the days of the Yankees and Red Stockings and others, and it would be interesting to see that process replicated a century or so later for a football team.

 

Plus, we so frequently refer to teams by city name anyway. WFT strips away the nickname convention and calls the franchise what it is: a football team loosely based in Washington, DC.

[gosioux76]

16 minutes ago, jc... said:

Calling it "Football Team" is just a reminder of what the old name is. 

 

I agree with this.  Change is hard, and it'll take whole generations before the franchise can fully embrace a new identity. I was watching North Dakota hockey on TV the other night and the Fighting Sioux gear in the stands still vastly outnumbered the amount of Fighting Hawks gear, and it will for years to come. But there was still Hawks gear there, and that will likely continue to increase as time passes, and the Sioux name will become part of history rather than the phantom present.

 

I have doubts whether a name that reads like, and was intended as, a placeholder can serve that same purpose. 

 

The cynic in me thinks, "of course people have warmed to the WFT name. Because it's like tacit approval to just keep calling them by their former name." 

[WSU151]

1 hour ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

I see it both ways.

 

But, ultimately, I like the simplicity of calling it WFT and the recognition that we call it WFT because the old name was a slur. It's not really the worst thing to remind ourselves we have a new name because we previously had a terrible name.

 

"We always have to remind ourselves of how bad our team names were once" really isn't the mantra I'd go with. It's almost as if you don't want to get past the bad times. It's like having a bad breakup but still keeping photos on Instagram with the partner's face scratched off, and/or still crying to your friends about what went wrong five years after the breakup. Move on already. WFT will always carry that extra baggage, which is a lame reason to go with it full time. 

 

Plenty of teams (like Miami of Ohio) have gone from Native-themed names to other team names without any period of remembrance just fine.

 

In 20 years people will still know why the old team name had to be changed to WFT for a season or two and why there is a new team name that is completely different.