Washington Commanders to debut new NFL identity

[BrySmalls]

On 1/7/2022 at 3:50 PM, DCarp1231 said:

 

If this logo mock-up is accurate, then what a joke.

[WideRight]

So am I the only one who thinks that after 2 years and a pretty major league budget for this project that if the final product is a yellow "W" on a maroon helmet, that it is pretty lame?  In today's age of computer graphics, everpresent marketing, and sports branding as an industry, the best you could get was a "W" on the helmet?  

 

I just expected more.  Pretty unimpressive if you ask me.  I can understand the Bears or Packers having a letter on the helmets, but for a team getting a new identity in 2022 it just seems so underwhelming.  When I think of the recent designs like Texans, Bucs, Panthers, Jags, etc. it just seems like WFT gave up and went with the least offensive, least creative option, regardless of the team name.  The "W" was a placeholder.  For it to be a permanent solution is just uninspired.  

 

My $0.02. 

 

[selgy]

27 minutes ago, WideRight said:

So am I the only one who thinks that after 2 years and a pretty major league budget for this project that if the final product is a yellow "W" on a maroon helmet, that it is pretty lame?  In today's age of computer graphics, everpresent marketing, and sports branding as an industry, the best you could get was a "W" on the helmet?  

 

 

And if they would do more there would be people complaining "this isn't an expansion franchise" treat this team with respect. 

Not everyone will be happy. 

[chakfu]

35 minutes ago, selgy said:

And if they would do more there would be people complaining "this isn't an expansion franchise" treat this team with respect. 

Not everyone will be happy. 

 

Seems like admirable restraint to me. 

[AgentColon2]

At least it isn’t on this level bad.

[BrySmalls]

2 minutes ago, AgentColon2 said:

At least it isn’t on this level bad.

 

It's worse!

[DCarp1231]

11 minutes ago, BryanSmalls said:

 

It's worse!

What part of that weird triangle imagery says “Thunder” to you, exactly?

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, WideRight said:

So am I the only one who thinks that after 2 years and a pretty major league budget for this project that if the final product is a yellow "W" on a maroon helmet, that it is pretty lame?  In today's age of computer graphics, everpresent marketing, and sports branding as an industry, the best you could get was a "W" on the helmet?  

 

I just expected more.  Pretty unimpressive if you ask me.  I can understand the Bears or Packers having a letter on the helmets, but for a team getting a new identity in 2022 it just seems so underwhelming.  When I think of the recent designs like Texans, Bucs, Panthers, Jags, etc. it just seems like WFT gave up and went with the least offensive, least creative option, regardless of the team name.  The "W" was a placeholder.  For it to be a permanent solution is just uninspired.  

 

My $0.02. 

 

 

I think a W is a more classic logo befitting of an old team than some overdesigned silhouette of a "commander", or anything in the style of those other teams you mentioned.  

 

Unpopular opinion - I'd put the W in a roundel with the three stars surrounding it, so it kinda mimics the shape of the former logo but is decidedly different.

[BrySmalls]

15 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

What part of that weird triangle imagery says “Thunder” to you, exactly?

 

The dark blue outline of the shield which is the color of thunderclouds.

[dont care]

5 hours ago, WideRight said:

So am I the only one who thinks that after 2 years and a pretty major league budget for this project that if the final product is a yellow "W" on a maroon helmet, that it is pretty lame?  In today's age of computer graphics, everpresent marketing, and sports branding as an industry, the best you could get was a "W" on the helmet?  

 

I just expected more.  Pretty unimpressive if you ask me.  I can understand the Bears or Packers having a letter on the helmets, but for a team getting a new identity in 2022 it just seems so underwhelming.  When I think of the recent designs like Texans, Bucs, Panthers, Jags, etc. it just seems like WFT gave up and went with the least offensive, least creative option, regardless of the team name.  The "W" was a placeholder.  For it to be a permanent solution is just uninspired.  

 

My $0.02. 

 

Outside of the Texans, those examples have something that’s easy to depict. How do you depict a “commander”. Going with a monogram and then letting a logo develop organically over time is the way to go.

 

Edit: looks like @BBTV beat me to it.

[CATLogo1]

On 1/9/2022 at 4:38 PM, Cujo said:

 

Now show me a records book that was drawn up 1996 or 1997. The Ravens will have the same records and same lineage as the Cleveland Browns. Everything, at the time, carried over to Baltimore. It wasn't until the '99 Expansion Browns were announced that the NFL decided to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

I don't think I can find a record book that old; however, I did find this URL reference (via the Wayback Machine) from November 12, 1996:
NFL.COM Browns News (archive.org)
It says, in quotes:
"Cleveland Browns logo, colors and heritage: The heritage and records, including the Browns’ name, logo, colors, history, playing records, trophies and memorabilia, will remain in Cleveland as property of the Cleveland Browns franchise."
It's generally understood as fact that the Cleveland Browns and Baltimore Ravens are two separate teams, and that the Ravens were established as an EXPANSION team that began play in 1996, whereas the Browns suspended operations from 1996 through 1998, before rejoining the NFL in 1999. 

[CATLogo1]

3 hours ago, AgentColon2 said:

At least it isn’t on this level bad.

I agree. I mean, it's bad enough that the NBA allowed a team like the Seattle SuperSonics (whom it barely acknowledges any more on NBA.com) to relocate from Seattle, Washington to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in 2008 to become the Oklahoma City Thunder, with this all-time hideous logo.

[Bill0813]

• Since there's debate about whether the Ravens were an expansion team,  consider that Modell tried to acquire the Colts name from the Irsays for $5M.  The Irsays countered with $25M, so no deal was struck.   Had he been successful, team historians, where would the Colts records from 1984-1994 belong?  To the renamed Indianapolis team?  
   

  Quote

  The story doesn't end there, though. In 1997, there was some chatter that the Colts might move to Cleveland to become the new Browns. Indy was losing money and Cleveland was about to get a new stadium for its new team. If the franchise in Indy moved to Cleveland, the name "Colts" was presumably going to become available.

  https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2022-nfl-coaching-carousel-tracker-nagy-zimmer-flores-out-updates-latest-news-and-rumors-on-firings/

[chcarlson23]

13 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

The Coyotes still reference their history as the Jets 1.0. They have guys like Bobby Hull & Dale Hawerchuk in their ring of honour, despite them never having played in Arizona, and the franchise scoring records include guys who only played in Winnipeg.

 

Similarly, the Jets 2.0 include the Thrashers in their history. Ilya Kovalchuk is still the all time leader in goals for the franchise.

 

I have seen the Jets differentiate between "franchise history", which is the Thrashers/modern Jets, and "Winnipeg hockey history", which combines the 2 Jets era & ignores anything that happened in Phoenix/Atlanta. That seems to be the best practice for situations like this.

The Wild do this as well. They’ll often reference the best Minnesota player, or other combined stats with the North Stars that they can reasonably get away with, and ignore the Dallas side of the Stars record. But it’s been less and less as the franchise has gotten older and had more time to grow its own statistics. 

[TenaciousG]

Does the NFL have any centralized control or approval of branding?

 

Even if they don’t, how do you allow a multibillion dollar franchise to launch a second-rate MLS crest as their logo?

[IceCap]

2 hours ago, CATLogo1 said:

It's generally understood as fact that the Cleveland Browns and Baltimore Ravens are two separate teams, and that the Ravens were established as an EXPANSION team that began play in 1996, whereas the Browns suspended operations from 1996 through 1998, before rejoining the NFL in 1999. 

That's the legal fiction the NFL says happens. But it's not what actually happened.

[dont care]

21 minutes ago, IceCap said:

That's the legal fiction the NFL says happens. But it's not what actually happened.

^This^ There is a difference between what factually happened, which is the browns moving everything but their uniforms to batimore and calling themselves the ravens, and the legal loopholes they had to jump through to make it happen (pretending that they are a “expansion team” and leaving all their history and stats behind to please the fans in Cleveland, and pretending that they aren’t the same team)

[Faxion]

2022 is a major landmark for Washington in many ways. Ontop of completely rebranding the historic franchise, It marks the 90th anniversary of the 'Football Team'.

 

New name / New uniform + 90th Anniversary patch

 

 

[Sykotyk]

6 hours ago, IceCap said:

That's the legal fiction the NFL says happens. But it's not what actually happened.

But it is. 

 

Old Browns fan here. The team was originally announced as the Baltimore Browns when the move was official. It was the leverage of Cleveland with their stadium lease and the NFL basically agreeing to give Cleveland a new team to end the threat of endless lawsuits that the deal to keep the name, colors, and history in Cleveland. 

 

This was before ANY games were played in Baltimore because Modell had no intention of giving up the name. In fact, Cleveland already approved the building of a new stadium before the Browns even finished playing in Cleveland. The argument modell used for moving them.

 

Which is sad because the Browns were offered a chance to be part of the Gateway Complex, but didn't want to give up the stadium he controlled for $1/year. Only when he lost the Indians rent, revenue and corporate money followed to the new Jacobs Field did he panick and demand a new stadium for the Browns.

 

The guy was a horrible businessman. Even after moving the team he still was forced to sell 99% of the team. And only kept the 1% so he could stiff someone else on money for a finders fee for helping to find a new owner. 

[Hat Boy]

8 hours ago, IceCap said:

That's the legal fiction the NFL says happens. But it's not what actually happened.

Yes, then we all agree it is an "Armin Tamzarian" situation. 

Now, let's get back to discussing the Washington identity.