2021-2022 NHL Jersey Changes

[Morgan33]

Bring those jerseys back but update the logo a little bit...  Lose some of the outlines, fix the hockey stick/tape and add some teal highlights to the Shark so the logo doesn't look monochrome on the road whites.

The Sharks are in dire need of a rebrand.  Their uniforms are bland, lifeless and look stuck in 2007.

[Chromatic]

5 minutes ago, Morgan33 said:

Bring those jerseys back but update the logo a little bit...  Lose some of the outlines, fix the hockey stick/tape and add some teal highlights to the Shark so the logo doesn't look monochrome on the road whites.

The Sharks are in dire need of a rebrand.  Their uniforms are bland, lifeless and look stuck in 2007.

But they're fast. Betcha 5 bucks the next Sharks uniform will have speedholes.

[NYRFan]

Was the recent Yotes vs. Sabres game going to be the last (outside of uni manufacturers) ad-less matchup in the NHL?

[AFirestormToPurify]

15 hours ago, Morgan33 said:

Bring those jerseys back but update the logo a little bit...  Lose some of the outlines, fix the hockey stick/tape and add some teal highlights to the Shark so the logo doesn't look monochrome on the road whites.

The Sharks are in dire need of a rebrand.  Their uniforms are bland, lifeless and look stuck in 2007.

You lost me at "teal highlights to the Shark" ahah. Unless it's extremely subtle. But I don't want another teal nosed shark. That's so cartoony and childish

 

15 hours ago, Chromatic said:

But they're fast. Betcha 5 bucks the next Sharks uniform will have speedholes.

[mcj882000]

2 hours ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

It won't be a dead horse until the jerseys are replaced.

[Sport]

edit: wrong thread. 

[dont care]

5 hours ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

You lost me at "teal highlights to the Shark" ahah. Unless it's extremely subtle. But I don't want another teal nosed shark. That's so cartoony and childish

 

Well both versions are cartoon sharks, I’d rather have the sleeker looking one than the one that looks like it was drawn by a child.

[AFirestormToPurify]

15 minutes ago, dont care said:

Well both versions are cartoon sharks, I’d rather have the sleeker looking one than the one that looks like it was drawn by a child.

You're right, the original was much better

 

2 hours ago, mcj882000 said:

It won't be a dead horse until the jerseys are replaced.

Both the joke AND the jerseys are extremely tired at this point

[sky1324]

5 hours ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

You lost me at "teal highlights to the Shark" ahah. Unless it's extremely subtle. But I don't want another teal nosed shark. That's so cartoony and childish

Well, sharks aren't black, either. Adding more of their primary color into their logo is a good thing.

[andrewharrington]

7 minutes ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

31 minutes ago, dont care said:

 

You're right, the original was much better

Didn’t the same artist create both? You’re saying he got worse over the course of 15 years?

[SFGiants58]

1 minute ago, andrewharrington said:

Didn’t the same artist create both? You’re saying he got worse over the course of 15 years?

 

Maybe. Heck, I bet Tom O'Grady isn't in his Swamp Dragons "prime" anymore!

[AFirestormToPurify]

40 minutes ago, QCS said:

Well, sharks aren't black, either. Adding more of their primary color into their logo is a good thing.

I know. Maybe the logo could have worked with the shark in a more realistic light gray and with a teal triangle or something. But that's not the way they chose to go, and I fully appreciate the artistic license taken in making the shark black.  I always thought the all-black shark looked badass. But just having the equivalent of a teal clown nose just never sat well with me. It's supposed to be a shadow effect I'm guessing? It could have been done more subtly. It just looks randomly MSPainted on as an afterthought. Not that they ever needed more teal than the triangle outline anyway

 

32 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

Didn’t the same artist create both? You’re saying he got worse over the course of 15 years?

That's not what I'm saying at all. It's a different approach is all. I just don't like the updated logo, I think it looks too cartoony with the wacky proportions. I get what they were going for, but I don't have to like it. I'm not saying it's garbage, mind you, it would be perfect for a pee-wee team. The artist did improve on his understanding of how hockey tape works, but he still got the top end of the stick wrong lol

And for the sake of the argument, yes, I absolutely do think an artist, whatever their vehicle/art form is, can get worse with time due to many different factors including jadedness, shifting interest or influences, corporate or executive meddling, the list goes on. In this case, I think Sharks management is at fault and I have no idea why they felt the need to overcorrect a best-selling and universally loved logo that only needed a few minor tweaks

[sky1324]

9 minutes ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

I know. Maybe the logo could have worked with the shark in a more realistic light gray and with a teal triangle or something. But that's not the way they chose to go, and I fully appreciate the artistic license taken in making the shark black.  I always thought the all-black shark looked badass. But just having the equivalent of a teal clown nose just never sat well with me. It's supposed to be a shadow effect I'm guessing? It could have been done more subtly. It just looks randomly MSPainted on as an afterthought. Not that they ever needed more teal than the triangle outline anyway

The teal is the highlight and the black is the shadow, which makes more sense than an all-black shark.

 

 

You can see how the teal represents where the shark is being hit by the light, as opposed to the black parts, which are in shadow.

 

 

Not only is the shark's shape not particularly well-defined in this logo, but there's no teal at all aside from one tiny partial outline in the triangle. The shark's eye is also black, making it hard to define, and it's not moving very much. It's a decent line from top left to middle right, but even then it looks like it's just being cropped by the triangle. The modern shark conveys much more movement simply by curving down slightly.

 

I won't defend the odd curves in the triangle of the modern logo nor the cartoonish chomping on the hockey stick (which is, in my opinion, way more ridiculous than having teal highlights on the shark) but the shark itself is much-better rendered and colored in the modern logo.

[AFirestormToPurify]

2 minutes ago, QCS said:

The teal is the highlight and the black is the shadow, which makes more sense than an all-black shark.

 

 

You can see how the teal represents where the shark is being hit by the light, as opposed to the black parts, which are in shadow.

 

 

Not only is the shark's shape not particularly well-defined in this logo, but there's no teal at all aside from one tiny partial outline in the triangle. The shark's eye is also black, making it hard to define, and it's not moving very much. It's a decent line from top left to middle right, but even then it looks like it's just being cropped by the triangle. The modern shark conveys much more movement simply by curving down slightly.

 

I won't defend the odd curves in the triangle of the modern logo nor the cartoonish chomping on the hockey stick (which is, in my opinion, way more ridiculous than having teal highlights on the shark) but the shark itself is much-better rendered and colored in the modern logo.

Not sure how a teal shark makes more sense than a black or pink or chrome shark but I never said the current logo was irredeemable garbage, just that the original logo only needed a few minor tweaks. A compromise between the two would be fine, probably. You're right about the lack of movement in the OG logo, but I don't mind it. I like to think of sharks as slow moving, roaming creatures waiting for the right moment to strike lol

And I don't like the orange eye at all. Or the inclusion of orange in their color scheme. Or any of their Edge and post-Edge jerseys, save for the throwback and RR, obviously

[CS85]

The modern Sharks logo blows because it's a cartoon character perfected by a marketing committee.  It's like the Jaguars going to their new Jag head.  It looks fine but it has no personality because it's generic.  The wonky Jaguar and the derpy Shark are charming and grounded in their odd and unfinished nature.  It felt unique, local, and more appropriate than the corporate blandness that radiates from these current designs.

[SFGiants58]

Both Shark designs suck. Like with everything related to the team, the San José Sharks need to start over and refine the basic idea of “shark comes out of triangle to bite hockey stick with tape on it.”

[AFirestormToPurify]

21 minutes ago, CS85 said:

The modern Sharks logo blows because it's a cartoon character perfected by a marketing committee.  It's like the Jaguars going to their new Jag head.  It looks fine but it has no personality because it's generic.  The wonky Jaguar and the derpy Shark are charming and grounded in their odd and unfinished nature.  It felt unique, local, and more appropriate than the corporate blandness that radiates from these current designs.

Yeah exactly what I've been trying to say all along except more bluntly lol. The original shark logo had charm and soul, and the current one is just lacking something. Or maybe I'm just blinded by nostalgia

 

12 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Both Shark designs suck. Like with everything related to the team, the San José Sharks need to start over and refine the basic idea of “shark comes out of triangle to bite hockey stick with tape on it.”

It's an extremely 90s identity but I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The Flyers have a 60s feel, in line with the simple yet abstract logos of the time. The Oilers have a late 70s/early 80s feel with the eye searing colors. The Blackhawks have that old timey combo of extremely busy logo and simple jersey design that would probably heavily criticized if they came out today, but were perfectly fine in the 30s. Why can't the Sharks keep the dumb angry animal logo? Does every team need to look like they're an O6 franchise? And if that's not what you meant, then what do you suggest?

[sky1324]

It's probably nostalgia, because I think the old Sharks logo just flat-out sucks. I'm no fan of the modern one, but it's definitely better than what came before it. There's a difference between being "grounded" and just looking bad. As a staunch defender of the original Hornets logo, I fully recognize that the early '90s expansion teams have an odd charm to them, but I think the Sharks are missing that charm, because it's all black and gray and white. The most notable color that isn't black is tan, which isn't a team color. Their iconic teal is a partial outline and their secondary silver is also an outline. They didn't even make the eye teal! That's like, the most obvious thing you can do to add a splash of color! It's a waste of great name and colors.

 

For what it's worth, I really like this Sharks logo. Excellent update of the primary, properly uses every color, and combines the triangle and the shark into a cohesive shape (the same way Robo-pen did). I'm not a big fan of the "S" shape at the bottom or the shadows on the teeth, upper teeth especially, but this blows both primaries out of the water, no pun intended.

 

[FiddySicks]

Yeah if the Sharks really want to look good again they need to go closer to their original look, with a logo that’s closer to that new alt logo. The current one is trash, and the old one looks too dated. All they really needed was an update to the old one and instead we got, as @Puckguy14puts it, PikaShark. 

[monkeypower]

I feel both the Sharks logos have the same problems as the Calgary Hitmen logo does where the amount of outlines and placement/layering of said outlines really obfuscate the "containment", so to speak, of the triangle and the logo as a whole. (Logos spoilered for space but you need to see them for what I'm saying).

 

Spoiler

 

The figure in all the logos, the sharks and the hitman, are supposed to be coming out of their respective triangles, but the outlining puts the figure somehow both "outside" and "inside" of the triangle at the same time because the layering is all over the place.

 

The Hitmen logo is worse with it because the most exterior outlines surround the entire logo and there is no distinction between one of those outlines and the outline of the hitman's arms, but you can still see it in the old Sharks logo where the shark is "above" the white interior of the logo and then the little black outline and the teal outline of the triangle but is "beneath" the remaining black/grey/black of the triangle. It implies that the shark is between a white/black/teal background void and a black/grey/black triangle or that the shark has somehow wriggled its way in between the black/teal part of the triangle and broken the triangle so it is coming out beneath the black/grey/black.

 

Then the shadowing in the top corner of the new Sharks logo makes it so you can't tell anything, which I guess fixes the problem because the shark is always seen as above all of the colours that make up the triangle. However, the teal seen behind the dorsal fin kind of implies that the shark is above the triangle because the light source in the logo is illuminating the shark's body and not the triangle.

 

(I really hope this makes sense)