Jezus_Ghoti

Cincinnati Bengals To Reveal New Uniforms On April 19

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Cujo said:

All i ask is that THIS never sees the light of day again

 

cincinnati bengals logo wallpaper | Cincinnati bengals, Nfl logo, Nfl teams  logos

Can anyone explain to an outsider what is so awful about that logo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

Can anyone explain to an outsider what is so awful about that logo?

Monograms are suppose to represent the city not the mascot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dont care said:

Monograms are suppose to represent the city not the mascot. 

Plus, the logo itself is boring and lazy, and the font is dated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't deserve the level of hate that it receives, at least in a vacuum. I think that the vitriol mostly comes from the fact that it replaced a much more dynamic, illustrative logo that was very popular. It also breaks the unwritten rule of using the nickname initial instead of the city initial, which is something that bugs me a lot personally.

 

More connection to Cincinnati specifically is something that I'd like to see in a Bengals update, because their brand has always stood out to me in major sports as one that could work in literally any city. Why not take even small opportunities to inject unique imagery in there instead of always focusing on literally cosplaying as tigers? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's more so the fact that the team insisting on using it as their primary look when they have a perfectly fine Bengal head logo that they rarely use anymore.

Share this post


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

Monograms are suppose to represent the city not the mascot. 

 

34 minutes ago, gsn93 said:

I think it's more so the fact that the team insisting on using it as their primary look when they have a perfectly fine Bengal head logo that they rarely use anymore.

 

Once I tell you that the "B" is not so much for Bengals as much as it is for Brown (as in Mike Paul Brown), things may become a little clearer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing inherently bad about that logo, there is just nothing good about it. The bengal head is considerably better 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, tBBP said:

 

 

Once I tell you that the "B" is not so much for Bengals as much as it is for Brown (as in Mike Paul Brown), things may become a little clearer...

You got a source for that, Buc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

As discussed in some thread (maybe this one?) a while back, I am not going to give a second thought to "classic is good." That means almost nothing coming from someone who isn't obsessed like we are. All it really means is that they'll be using black and orange. I am sure most non-obsessed observers would have said that upon seeing the current Vikings uniforms, which would get us thinking about Fran Tarkenton or perhaps Cris Carter.

 

Pro Football Talk published an article about the news that the helmet would not be changing and said something like "the Bengals have not had a major overhaul of their uniforms since the debut of the tiger stripes in 1981". I shook my head until it fell off. SInce then they've had a minor overhaul of their uniforms and a major overhaul. 

 

 

2003 

2823033-850x560.jpeg

 

2004

rudi-johnson-of-the-cincinnati-bengals-i

 

yeah totally not a major overhaul. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sport said:

Pro Football Talk published an article about the news that the helmet would not be changing and said something like "the Bengals have not had a major overhaul of their uniforms since the debut of the tiger stripes in 1981". I shook my head until it fell off. SInce then they've had a minor overhaul of their uniforms and a major overhaul. 

 

 

2003 

2823033-850x560.jpeg

 

2004

rudi-johnson-of-the-cincinnati-bengals-i

 

yeah totally not a major overhaul. 

They look pretty similar to me. Nothing major changed, other than the side panels. If you had picked a picture where the modern jerseys are paired with white pants, they would have looked even closer. You could have posted the white jerseys instead lol. Now those were pretty different

Share this post


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

Can anyone explain to an outsider what is so awful about that logo?

 

I'm with you.

403.png

 

is better than

 

377.gif

 

Is better than

 

3108.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

They look pretty similar to me. Nothing major changed, other than the side panels. If you had picked a picture where the modern jerseys are paired with white pants, they would have looked even closer. You could have posted the white jerseys instead lol. Now those were pretty different

Side panels, sleeve caps, away jersey yoke, uniform numbers and pants stripes all changed. That's pretty significant. Then again people think that Cleveland's 2015 change was minimal too.

 

 

Bengals suffer first loss vs. Browns since 2014 in Week 12 beatdown - Cincy  Jungle

List of Cincinnati Bengals starting quarterbacks - Wikipedia

The coldest games in Cincinnati Bengals history

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

Side panels, sleeve caps, away jersey yoke, uniform numbers and pants stripes all changed. That's pretty significant. Then again people think that Cleveland's 2015 change was minimal too.

 

You're just focusing on the small differences. The colors stayed the same. The helmet is the same. The tiger stripes are still featured on the pants and arm stripes. The number are still black or white and outlined in orange. On the black jerseys at least. I do agree that the white jerseys were hit the hardest. When I play Madden, I never dress the Bengals in their away jerseys 😂 The major design elements are the same, I wouldn't say it was such a radical departure. If you described the uniform to a blind person without going too much into the details like font and paneling, they would think nothing has changed lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

I'm with you.

 

 

377.gif

 

 

I've always felt like this logo could be Tony the Tiger, if someone pissed in his Corn Flakes

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AFirestormToPurify said:

You're just focusing on the small differences. The colors stayed the same. The helmet is the same. The tiger stripes are still featured on the pants and arm stripes. The number are still black or white and outlined in orange. On the black jerseys at least. I do agree that the white jerseys were hit the hardest. When I play Madden, I never dress the Bengals in their away jerseys 😂 The major design elements are the same, I wouldn't say it was such a radical departure. If you described the uniform to a blind person without going too much into the details like font and paneling, they would think nothing has changed lol

Those aren't small. If you can't even bear to watch them wear their current away jersey, then you have to acknowledge that it's because it's a significant change from what they wore before. 

Me describing the previous jersey: It's a standard black jersey with the exception of a UCLA stripe designed to look like the body of a tiger. I features standard block numbers on the sleeves. The side panel on the pants has a similar pattern.

 

Current jersey: It is a black jersey with rounded numerals and a tiger striped letter B below the collar. It features a sleeve cap with a pattern that is similar to the previous pattern that was limited to the shoulder and even bleeds upwards onto the yoke. On the away version, the yoke is orange. The pant stripes feature a tiger stripe pattern that abruptly cuts off about 2/3 of the way down the pant leg. The helmet is the same as the previous design. 

 

If I'm describing this to someone who cannot see it or does not understand the design, I'd go into more in depth discussion to make them understand what I'm talking about. Even if I don't lead with, "Hey they changed their uniform", they'd understand that from description alone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

Those aren't small. If you can't even bear to watch them wear their current away jersey, then you have to acknowledge that it's because it's a significant change from what they wore before. 

Me describing the previous jersey: It's a standard black jersey with the exception of a UCLA stripe designed to look like the body of a tiger. I features standard block numbers on the sleeves. The side panel on the pants has a similar pattern.

 

Current jersey: It is a black jersey with rounded numerals and a tiger striped letter B below the collar. It features a sleeve cap with a pattern that is similar to the previous pattern that was limited to the shoulder and even bleeds upwards onto the yoke. On the away version, the yoke is orange. The pant stripes feature a tiger stripe pattern that abruptly cuts off about 2/3 of the way down the pant leg. The helmet is the same as the previous design. 

 

If I'm describing this to someone who cannot see it or does not understand the design, I'd go into more in depth discussion to make them understand what I'm talking about. Even if I don't lead with, "Hey they changed their uniform", they'd understand that from description alone. 

To be fair, I'm not a fan of their old white uniforms either. They're the kinda team that I want to like really bad, cause I think the helmet looks cool and all, and in theory the tiger stripes should look cool too so I like the concept, but the execution feels off to me. Even on the 90s uniforms. Some teams look better in white to me, like the Dolphins, especially in mono white, but the Bengals to me look much better in all black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AFirestormToPurify said:

Can anyone explain to an outsider what is so awful about that logo?

 

It's not a "C", does not represent the city.

 

Oh and it's boring af.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cujo said:

 

It's not a "C", does not represent the city.

 

Oh and it's boring af.

So? It represents the team. Maybe I'm biased cause my favorite team's logo is a C that stands for the team's name, but I don't see anything wrong with that

And boring is subjective. Do you find the Cubs logo in your avatar boring? Cause it's not objectively much different from the Bengals' B logo

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.