NFL 2022 Changes

[throwuascenario]

16 hours ago, FinsUp1214 said:

That’s why I said “throwback-inspired” rather than direct throwback; I don’t want the old logo back as-is, it needs a fair bit of cleaning up to work today. But I do like your suggestion of splitting the difference, I think the right Dolphins logo can be found in that area. And definitely agree that it ought to follow the general shape of the 90’s logo, which was much better structurally. My biggest gripes with the Dolphins current logo is the belly flop position that I can’t unsee, and it also looks really awkward and sometimes over-tilted on a helmet. It’s just bad in concept and function. 

 

I don't really have a problem with their current logo in design, it does look to me like a dolphin swimming. I just think it looks more soulless than their previous logo, which had its own flaws. As far as the jerseys go, I prefer the throwbacks but don't have a problem with the modern ones either. I just want them to pick one.

[PERRIN]

5 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

 

And people also love BFBS,  GFGS, mono white, leotard socks, and NBA city edition uniforms (which are only slightly more off-brand than throwbacks). So what?

Throwbacks don't dilute a team's brand like any of these examples. They reinforce it, if anything. Celebrating a team's historical sets is a celebration of the brand's history, and is deservedly revered. Is it capitalizing of nostalgia? Of course, but it's perfectly reasonable to liven things up and make some extra money if you can look great in the process. Throwing in new, unrelated alternates every year or overhauling a brand just to jump on modern trends is a completely different can of worms. If you can't see the difference, you're just being cynical. To call this argument a straw man is a disrespect to scarecrows.

 

[WSU151]

1 hour ago, throwuascenario said:

 

And people also love BFBS,  GFGS, mono white, leotard socks, and NBA city edition uniforms (which are only slightly more off-brand than throwbacks). So what?

 

When the Bills, Seahawks, Buccaneers, Eagles, and (hopefully) Broncos wear throwbacks next year just for fun and nostalgia reasons, I'm not going to complain. 

 

And to add - throwbacks are far less likely to be BFBS or GFGS. Leotard looks happen with current throwbacks (49ers white, Giants white) because of Color Rush, which is a shame but hopefully that fad phases out. If you don't like those modern trends, it seems like throwbacks (and the traditional looks that come with them) would be preferable.

[throwuascenario]

3 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

When the Bills, Seahawks, Buccaneers, Eagles, and (hopefully) Broncos wear throwbacks next year just for fun and nostalgia reasons, I'm not going to complain. 

 

And to add - throwbacks are far less likely to be BFBS or GFGS. Leotard looks happen with current throwbacks (49ers white, Giants white) because of Color Rush, which is a shame but hopefully that fad phases out. If you don't like those modern trends, it seems like throwbacks (and the traditional looks that come with them) would be preferable.

 

I don't mind traditional uniforms at all - I actually prefer them. If they're the full time uniform. If they're so great, wear them all the time. Otherwise, don't dilute your current brand.

 

Quote

Throwbacks don't dilute a team's brand like any of these examples. They reinforce it, if anything. Celebrating a team's historical sets is a celebration of the brand's history, and is deservedly revered. Is it capitalizing of nostalgia? Of course, but it's perfectly reasonable to liven things up and make some extra money if you can look great in the process. Throwing in new, unrelated alternates every year or overhauling a brand just to jump on modern trends is a completely different can of worms. If you can't see the difference, you're just being cynical. To call this argument a straw man is a disrespect to scarecrows.

 

A team's past brand is not their current brand. It's a totally separate brand. That's why it's called a rebranding.

 

It's like saying people should go back to driving horses and buggies once a week because it shows how we got to cars. The old brand was left behind for a reason. If you don't think that reason was good enough, then they should be brought back full time. Until then, they are distracting from the current brand they are trying to establish.

 

To me, throwbacks are just as unrelated to a team's current brand as city alternates. As in, 0 relation.

 

My overall point was that someone "loving" something means nothing. Everything that comes out is bound to be loved by someone.

[BadSeed84]

1 hour ago, throwuascenario said:

 

I don't mind traditional uniforms at all - I actually prefer them. If they're the full time uniform. If they're so great, wear them all the time. Otherwise, don't dilute your current brand.

 

 

A team's past brand is not their current brand. It's a totally separate brand. That's why it's called a rebranding.

 

It's like saying people should go back to driving horses and buggies once a week because it shows how we got to cars. The old brand was left behind for a reason. If you don't think that reason was good enough, then they should be brought back full time. Until then, they are distracting from the current brand they are trying to establish.

 

To me, throwbacks are just as unrelated to a team's current brand as city alternates. As in, 0 relation.

 

My overall point was that someone "loving" something means nothing. Everything that comes out is bound to be loved by someone.

 

The teams make bank on both the throwbacks along with the current look. That is the main difference,

Also pretty silly to make a blanket statement that throwbacks are all unrelated to the teams current brand.

[spartacat_12]

5 hours ago, throwuascenario said:

I don't really have a problem with their current logo in design, it does look to me like a dolphin swimming. I just think it looks more soulless than their previous logo, which had its own flaws. As far as the jerseys go, I prefer the throwbacks but don't have a problem with the modern ones either. I just want them to pick one.

 

It feels a bit like when the Pittsburgh Penguins switched from the skating penguin to the robo-penguin. It wasn't a bad look, and seemed a little more professional, but most fans felt like it was too much of a soulless corporate mark. Pittsburgh went back to the old kitschier logo, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Dolphins end up doing the same eventually.

[WSU151]

1 hour ago, throwuascenario said:

 

I don't mind traditional uniforms at all - I actually prefer them. If they're the full time uniform. If they're so great, wear them all the time. Otherwise, don't dilute your current brand.

 

 

A team's past brand is not their current brand. It's a totally separate brand. That's why it's called a rebranding.

 

It's like saying people should go back to driving horses and buggies once a week because it shows how we got to cars. The old brand was left behind for a reason. If you don't think that reason was good enough, then they should be brought back full time. Until then, they are distracting from the current brand they are trying to establish.

 

To me, throwbacks are just as unrelated to a team's current brand as city alternates. As in, 0 relation.

 

My overall point was that someone "loving" something means nothing. Everything that comes out is bound to be loved by someone.

 

You realize some people have modern daily driver cars and then they also have collector cars right?  Comparing updated football uniforms to a horse & buggy-to-automobile modernization is apples and oranges. 

 

"If they're so great they should be brought back full time" is a fairly weak argument. Alternates are possible. I have a great suit that is arguably better than the rest of my suits but I don't wear it every day.  I don't wear it to every important meeting. I like to change it up. Pushing the idea that there's some strict heirarchy for all teams doesn't pass muster. 

 

Tradition and history are important to a team's brand. Wearing something that honors the past and allows fans to indulge memories of the past at an event that lasts for three hours isn't apocalyptic. 

[Ridleylash]

8 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

It feels a bit like when the Pittsburgh Penguins switched from the skating penguin to the robo-penguin. It wasn't a bad look, and seemed a little more professional, but most fans felt like it was too much of a soulless corporate mark. Pittsburgh went back to the old kitschier logo, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Dolphins end up doing the same eventually.

Also didn't help either case that neither team won a lot under the new mark, either.

 

When the helmeted dolphin is associated with the back-to-back Super Bowl teams and the current logo is associated with getting crapped on by the Steelers in the Wild Card...fans will inevitably want the helmeted dolphin back lol

[Sec19Row53]

1 minute ago, WSU151 said:

 

You realize some people have modern daily driver cars and then they also have collector cars right?  

 

"If they're so great they should be brought back full time" is a fairly weak argument. Alternates are possible. I have a great suit that is arguably better than the rest of my suits but I don't wear it every day.  I don't wear it to every important meeting. I like to change it up. Pushing the idea that there's some strict heirarchy for all teams doesn't pass muster. 

 

Tradition and history are important to a team's brand. Wearing something that honors the past and allows fans to indulge memories of the past at an event that lasts for three hours isn't apocalyptic. 

Nor is it necessary.

 

In the case of your great suit, that suit isn't your brand (you are). If you change your clothes, you aren't affecting your brand. The same isn't true of a sports team (or other franchise).

 

Clearly, it's about the ability to make more money. If it weren't, you'd see McDonald's outfit their employees in throwback uniforms. I don't have to like it, because my preference for sports teams is to always look your best. I won't convince people that I'm right (because who know if I am), but it's what we do here

[WSU151]

1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Nor is it necessary.

 

In the case of your great suit, that suit isn't your brand (you are). If you change your clothes, you aren't affecting your brand. The same isn't true of a sports team (or other franchise).

 

Clearly, it's about the ability to make more money. If it weren't, you'd see McDonald's outfit their employees in throwback uniforms. I don't have to like it, because my preference for sports teams is to always look your best. I won't convince people that I'm right (because who know if I am), but it's what we do here

 

Obviously money is a part of it. I'd rather a team make money off historical looks than random flavor-of-the-month alternate looks. 

 

When the Phillies wear throwbacks, my first question isn't "Is this the best uniform they have?" My first question is "How great is it they wear it once in a while?" And nobody thinks the Bears' or Packers' throwbacks are better than the current looks, but I don't mind them trying something different for 15% of the season. 

 

If you ever watch "Making the Cut" they have designers who have strong pride in their brands, and the judges appreciate designers wanting to have strong brands, but almost always the judges suggest they get out of their comfort zone at least once. 

 

The thing is the NFL probably has 30 of the top 50 most mature, strongest brands in sports. The Cowboys' brand is so strong that they're going to wear white helmets and white pants with different stripes and everyone will still know they're the Cowboys. There won't be any confusion. There won't be any dilution.  Jerry Jones - who takes pride in the strong Cowboys brand - isn't worried about it. 

[BadSeed84]

4 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Nor is it necessary.

 

In the case of your great suit, that suit isn't your brand (you are). If you change your clothes, you aren't affecting your brand. The same isn't true of a sports team (or other franchise).

 

Clearly, it's about the ability to make more money. If it weren't, you'd see McDonald's outfit their employees in throwback uniforms. I don't have to like it, because my preference for sports teams is to always look your best. I won't convince people that I'm right (because who know if I am), but it's what we do here

 

It's funny you mention that as we have seen Pizza Hut & Burger King revert back to older logo's, so there is some example of it in the fast food world (Though not flat out throwback uniforms on them).

 

[gosioux76]

2 hours ago, throwuascenario said:

 

I don't mind traditional uniforms at all - I actually prefer them. If they're the full time uniform. If they're so great, wear them all the time. Otherwise, don't dilute your current brand.

 

 

A team's past brand is not their current brand. It's a totally separate brand. That's why it's called a rebranding.

 

It's like saying people should go back to driving horses and buggies once a week because it shows how we got to cars. The old brand was left behind for a reason. If you don't think that reason was good enough, then they should be brought back full time. Until then, they are distracting from the current brand they are trying to establish.

 

To me, throwbacks are just as unrelated to a team's current brand as city alternates. As in, 0 relation.

 

My overall point was that someone "loving" something means nothing. Everything that comes out is bound to be loved by someone.

 

This is a little perplexing to me. 

 

You can talk about "past" brand vs. "current" brand, but on the whole it's all a part of the same brand. Pat Patriot and Flying Elvis are each representative of the Patriots brand. Trying to say otherwise is complete nonsense. Just because it's of the past doesn't mean it somehow no longer represents what it stood for. 

 

What some others have said, that throwbacks are about making money, is true . But the reason they make money is because they elicit a certain affinity for the brand that's rooted in nostalgia. So in using throwbacks, a team isn't  diluting its brand, but reinforcing it with a large part of the fanbase who identify with a prior look.  

[DCarp1231]

Washington is really calling it “legacy burgundy”

[fouhy12]

The Patriots have had the old "Pat the Patriot" branding in the stadium alongside the Flying Elvis for a while. They've also sold merch with both logos since at least the 2009 AFL anniversary season, if not earlier. They currently sell the 90's jerseys with the Flying Elvis, too. And they just got new uniforms with a partial rebrand in 2020. Despite all that, I don't think anyone in New England or otherwise is confused about the team's brand. 

 

Nobody would get confused if they went on Google and it was the old logo for a day. The history of the brand is part of the brand in the eyes of fans, and throwbacks help connect with older fans while also showcasing another design (and making money in the process). Fandom is typically passed down within families, so if you can't connect with a throwback, your parents probably can and they'll share their connection to it with you. I don't think they dilute a brand in the slightest. 

[ManillaToad]

5 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

It feels a bit like when the Pittsburgh Penguins switched from the skating penguin to the robo-penguin. It wasn't a bad look, and seemed a little more professional, but most fans felt like it was too much of a soulless corporate mark. Pittsburgh went back to the old kitschier logo, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Dolphins end up doing the same eventually.

 

There's a fine line between professional and soullessly corporate, which the Dolphins crossed with their current logo

[fouhy12]

Looks like the Pats are bringing out the throwback logo and endzones for Sunday. 

 

That wordmark doesn't match anything in their history, though. I think they're using a font for it they've also used on their social media. I think this is the font used for "KEYS" and "HAPPY" in these graphics.

 

 

This is the throwback wordmark, and it doesn't seem to match what's on the field. 

 

[WSU151]

27 minutes ago, fouhy12 said:

Looks like the Pats are bringing out the throwback logo and endzones for Sunday. 

 

That wordmark doesn't match anything in their history, though. I think they're using a font for it they've also used on their social media. I think this is the font used for "KEYS" and "HAPPY" in these graphics.

 

 

This is the throwback wordmark, and it doesn't seem to match what's on the field. 

 

 

I believe it’s the font Sullivan/Foxboro Stadium had in the 80s, with the blue endzones and red letters. Very close to a TNR font that never appeared anywhere else. 

[nuordr]

2 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

I believe it’s the font Sullivan/Foxboro Stadium had in the 80s, with the blue endzones and red letters. Very close to a TNR font that never appeared anywhere else. 

Here was the endzones from 1985-1990 at Foxboro:

 

[fouhy12]

Yep, it's the Sullivan endzones but not filled in.

 

 

 

[Ark]

I want to see Patriot Pats vs. Bucco Bruces