Washington Commanders to debut new NFL identity

[DG_ThenNowForever]

That's just a photoshop. There's no silver jersey.

[gosioux76]

11 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

 

I don't think it's that clear-cut. The Seahawks' uniforms are very modern, but people seem to like them just fine. The Cowboys, Patriots and Saints have "classic" uniforms that suck. The Jaguars switched from a modern look to an old-school look and both uniform sets have been widely complained about for the exact opposite reasons.

 

The Commanders' new look doesn't suck because it's modern, it sucks because the Snyders have no taste but think they know better than the actual designers. The Washington Football Team era, and the weird stretch of seasons in the early-mid 2010s when they insisted on wearing those mismatched gold pants for every game, prove that they are every bit as capable of screwing up a classic look as they are with a modern look.

 

I thought this was clear, but maybe not:  I wasn't suggesting this as a modern-vs-classic issue. I'm suggesting that this could easily become the latest example of a recurring theme of terrible new looks being replaced by iterations of traditional ones.  And as such, perhaps that is the best we can hope for anymore from this league. 

 

I'm not even sure I'd consider this Commanders look "modern" in the sense that the Seahawks or others might be.  But you can easily envision a situation playing out in which, somewhere down the road, some new owner looks back at the team's rich history and say, "we need to look more like that." 

 

That would be an ideal outcome.

[nuordr]

I just found another issue with the rebrand. Apparently, the team put the wrong years in their secondary logo for years they won the Super Bowl. 

 

1983 should be 1982

1998 should be 1987

1992 should be 1991

 

 

[AgentColon2]

Thanks for the good laugh this morning. I needed that.

[Sykotyk]

17 hours ago, Silver_Star said:

So it's true. No white pants for the burgundy tops? Oh my god! Why copy Seattle of any team? This is just bull? Why do they let Nike do stuff like this?

The Browns didn't introduce orange pants with the new uniforms but had them the first year. So white pants can be added. 

[LogoFan]

1 hour ago, nuordr said:

I just found another issue with the rebrand. Apparently, the team put the wrong years in their secondary logo for years they won the Super Bowl. 

 

1983 should be 1982

1998 should be 1987

1992 should be 1991

 

 

 

The logo is the shame of the NFL.  Too busy, too disjointed and just a hot mess of ideas, like a brainstorming session where they were asked what should be important in the new branding and the white board answers were:

"Let's throw in the W logo!"
"Yeah...and our founding year, too!"
"Guys, can't forget the name...make sure it's prominent!"
"What about the city's flag?  Gotta be in there!"
"Don't forget we've won Championships.  Have to mention that!"

"Make sure we don't get confused with Washington soccer, or Washington lacrosse.  Need mention it's football".

 

Group leader reviews the board and says, "Okay, this is out top 5.  Send it to the design team."

Design team gets email.  "Ok, everyone.  We've got to make all this fit.  Let's get going."

Did ANYONE stop to consider this logo has to be updated if Washington wins another SB?  How freaking crowded are you going to allow the ugly thing to get???
 

[⋔ 4 ℞ ℞ $]

18 hours ago, canzman said:

pretty sure this is what we got going on based on the images that have been made available.

 

Dark

White

Alt

The new, satin, burgundy helmet does not have a gold face mask; it, too, is matching burgundy. Also, the new, alternate, glossy, black helmet has a gold DC flag emblem on the back.

[Moseph]

1 hour ago, nuordr said:

Here is my review of the name, logo, and uniforms I just posted to our Sports Aesthetics blog. 

 

Team Name Grade: B - I believe the new name could be better, but anything was better than Football Team and trust me, the name could have been much worse. 

Logos: 

Main Logo: B - Once again, not the best logo, but it is simple, and you will identify the team immediately. 

Typeface: C - I wish they would have put the line above Commanders above Washington. 

Secondary Logo: A - I like that this logo shows the date the team was founded, the three stars either represents the DC flag or the number of Super Bowls the team has won. 

 

Logo Overall Grade: B

 

Helmets: 

 

Burgundy Helmet: D - I like the new satin finish, the stripe, the logo. I hate the facemask as it should be gold like previous helmets. 

Black Helmet: F - I hate the black. I hate the numbers on the side of the helmet, the W on the front of the helmet, and no stripe. 

Helmets Overall Grade: D 

 

Jerseys: 

 

Burgundy Jersey: D - By far the best jersey of all 3 released, but still far from stellar. I like the stripes on the sleeves and the number font is not bad, I dislike the Commanders name on the chest as it is too big, no TV Numbers is a big no-no for me. 

 

White Jersey: F - Awful design and no consistency with the burgundy jerseys as the numbers, sleeve stripe pattern is different. The gradient numbers are a disaster (did management not now about the hate the Rams received from their gradient numbers?) The Washington typeface across the chest is small compared to the burgundy jersey and makes it hard to read. 

 

Black Jersey: F - Another different and awful design from the team. No sleeve stripes, a different number font, a stupid Commander patch on the front chest, secondary logo on one arm, the DC flag on the other arm. 

Jerseys Overall Grade: F - No consistency, no tv numbers, just a bad overall design. 

 

Pants: 

 

Pants Overall Grade: F - All the pants are the same color as the jerseys. The pants are all plain, with no stripes and awful. 

 

Socks: 

 

Socks Overall Grade: F All the socks are a solid and color as the jerseys and pants.

 

Overall Grade: F

 

Failure and they need to hit the reset button immediately. It is so bad, that they didn't even have a name last season, but their uniforms were still a Top 15 look. This new uniform will go immediately to the near bottom, second worst look in the league behind the Jaguars, maybe even in last place. 

 

Issues: 

• No stripes on the pants
• No consistency in the design between the Home, Road, and Alternative uniforms
• No gold pants 
• No gold facemask
• No TV numbers
• No striping pattern on the burgundy helmet to match the sleeve stripes of the burgundy jersey (the best part of the entire uniform set)
• Adding BFBS, Black for Black Sake to a uniform color palette that DID NOT need black. 
• Typeface different on all jerseys
• Did I mention no stripes on the pants
• Black helmet
• Stupid W on black helmet
• Players numbers on black helmet
• Military style font on 2 of the 4 jerseys 
• Gradient numbers on the white jersey 

I agree with you on a the majority of this, but for the secondary logo they should've gone with the roundel from the alternate jersey. Its a cleaner, streamlined version that is actually in team colors, plus its not as cluttered since it doesn't have the championship years on. The number fonts are the same across all three jerseys, its just that the aways didn't get the stencil lines for some reason to match the home and alternate. Also, the thickness of the away stripes seem the same as the home set, so atleast there is a little bit of consistency there albeit with a different color scheme.

 

One thing I do kind of like with this set is the application of word marks on the jerseys. The Commanders name is too big on the home set but I like how they went with the contrasting Washington mark on the aways, it reminds me of MLB teams that use team name at home and city name on the road. 

[Moseph]

2 minutes ago, ⋔ 4 ℞ ℞ $ said:

The new, satin, burgundy helmet does not have a gold face mask; it, too, is matching burgundy. Also, the new, alternate, glossy, black helmet has a gold DC flag emblem on the back.

Those gold facemasks help this set out a little bit, but its still a dumpster fire

[Bill0813]

13 hours ago, kmccarthy27 said:

There was a mail in suggestion thing. That somehow ended up on the top 5 list. They did a “fan vote” thing with NBC4 and they said that won. It could be Polin liked and did what Snyder did with Commanders and just do some false vote to make it seem the people wanted it. 

Pollin's wife favored it out of the 5 choices, the other's being Dragons, Express, Stallions, and Sea Dogs.  Now we get the Commanders' uniform mess because of the owner's wife.

[joekono]

1 hour ago, nuordr said:

I just found another issue with the rebrand. Apparently, the team put the wrong years in their secondary logo for years they won the Super Bowl. 

 

1983 should be 1982

1998 should be 1987

1992 should be 1991

 

 

Holy crap!!!!!! How did I miss that??? Oh, it was the sh#$%y uniforms. I want to pile on but I really don't think your Super Bowl years wrong is funny. Wow. Tremendous job nuordr

[kmccarthy27]

1 minute ago, Bill0813 said:

Pollin's wife favored it out of the 5 choices, the other's being Dragons, Express, Stallions, and Sea Dogs.  Now we get the Commanders' uniform mess because of the owner's wife.

I knew there was something else with it and some similar controversy that people felt that was not the one voted for. 

[JQK]

History repeats itself...

[MOD EDIT: Not going there.]

Edited February 3, 2022 by officeglenn

[ManillaToad]

1 hour ago, Lights Out said:

The Saints have "classic" uniforms that suck.

 

Say what?

[MJWalker45]

1 hour ago, nuordr said:

I just found another issue with the rebrand. Apparently, the team put the wrong years in their secondary logo for years they won the Super Bowl. 

 

1983 should be 1982

1998 should be 1987

1992 should be 1991

 

 

It's stupid to include championship years on a team logo when you should expect to add to them. Splitting the "EST 1932"  is rather silly as well. Who's ever done that before?

[IceCap]

The roundel logo is so desperately trying to be the Ravens' Maryland state flag shield. 

It had no hope of surpassing it, but the decision to omit the actual DC flag from it is a letdown. 

 

The ring with "Washington Football" and the years they won a championship also adds way too much and makes it overly cluttered. 

The dates are wrong for the SB era, but that could have been avoided if they'd just not done it. Working in stuff to represent the number of times you've won a title is always bad. 

Best case scenario you win another and have to change the logo. Worst case scenario you don't and your ever-increasing drought is front and centre on the uniforms. 

 

The one nice thing I'll say about this rebrand is that the name "Commanders" is fine. It's not the best, but I'll take it over something dumb like "DCFC" or staying "Washington Football Team." 

 

Shame all the logos and uniforms suck. 

[DCarp1231]

10 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

It's stupid to include championship years on a team logo when you should expect to add to them.

That’s the thing. The team stopped winning 30 years ago.

 

Washington’s executives in charge of designing this logo-

[nuordr]

Over on my Sports Aesthetics page, I was asked to build a survey to grade each part of the Washington Commanders rebrand from the team name, logos, and uniform parts. If you would like to participate, here is the link to the survey. 

[Survival79]

These can't be real, right?

 

"The black number outline and stripe on the sleeve paved the way for the black alternate jersey."

 

 

 

[DCarp1231]

I have a feeling the rumored gold pants are the equivalent of this-

 

They’ll be an option… on paper.

 

I also fully expect the team to use the black facemask on the burgundy helmets and they’ll probably reintroduced a gold facemask as well.