2023-24 NHL Jersey Changes

[The_Admiral]

Brown pants and gloves would look great for Minnesota, though. 

[BuckDancer]

1 hour ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

Almost every example you've provided has been extremely popular with the respective fanbases, so it sounds like you just want teams to change for the sake of it. Maybe this just shows that most teams got it right on their first try and never should have changed in the first place.

 

Did you really want to see the Flyers go off the board and come up with something the fans would hate?

 

 

The fact that they're darkening the orange should've been a sign to ditch the nameplates altogether. Is it really that hard to make out the name on this jersey?

 

I'm not questioning whether some of them were popular choices, I'm saying a lot of these were generally lazy decisions, especially arizona and ottawa.

 

I like when teams keep refining their look, a team like St. Louis for example, has throughout the decades introduced numerous looks from their original 60's light blue/gold look, to their 80's darks blue and red, the angled jerseys in the 90's, and then they kept refining their '98 look until they got what they have today. Which I would say is probably their best look and a modern classic. Now they could have easily just jumped on the old school trend after messing up their look in 2007 like many teams did and just went back to an old 70's or 80's look like their current third retro jersey. But thankfully they did it right and just fixed their mistake, which I wish many teams had done instead of the retro jersey return, and ended up with someone even better than what they had pre edge.

[spartacat_12]

51 minutes ago, BuckDancer said:

I'm not questioning whether some of them were popular choices, I'm saying a lot of these were generally lazy decisions, especially arizona and ottawa.

 

I like when teams keep refining their look, a team like St. Louis for example, has throughout the decades introduced numerous looks from their original 60's light blue/gold look, to their 80's darks blue and red, the angled jerseys in the 90's, and then they kept refining their '98 look until they got what they have today. Which I would say is probably their best look and a modern classic. Now they could have easily just jumped on the old school trend after messing up their look in 2007 like many teams did and just went back to an old 70's or 80's look like their current third retro jersey. But thankfully they did it right and just fixed their mistake, which I wish many teams had done instead of the retro jersey return, and ended up with someone even better than what they had pre edge.

 

I mean St. Louis basically just went back to their pre-Edge jerseys, with a slight change to the sleeve striping, so I don't think they're really the best example to try and prove your point.

 

Also, the teams you've mentioned all tried doing different things with their brands before realizing the fans wanted something close to the old look. The Sabres did a big departure with the switch to black/grey/red, then tried doing an "evolved" version of the original set with the navy blue & silver, before eventually returning to royal blue. Edmonton went navy & copper, and also tried orange at home with navy blue. The Canucks tried 2 completely different colour schemes before reverting to blue & green.

[BBTV]

14 hours ago, the admiral said:

The idea was that single-layer black letters on white were easier to read than white on orange. There's no reason to bring a black base in.

 

I thought the idea was that they were made for their white uniforms (when names were mandatory for some games) and they never made separate nameplates for the orange jerseys, so they simply used the white ones when they had to wear them on the orange (and then made orange nameplates once names were required full time.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BuckDancer]

1 hour ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

I mean St. Louis basically just went back to their pre-Edge jerseys, with a slight change to the sleeve striping, so I don't think they're really the best example to try and prove your point.

 

Also, the teams you've mentioned all tried doing different things with their brands before realizing the fans wanted something close to the old look. The Sabres did a big departure with the switch to black/grey/red, then tried doing an "evolved" version of the original set with the navy blue & silver, before eventually returning to royal blue. Edmonton went navy & copper, and also tried orange at home with navy blue. The Canucks tried 2 completely different colour schemes before reverting to blue & green.

That's what I'm saying, a lot teams developed their look like the blues, had it close to right pre edge, then messed it up, but the blues went back to it and fixed it up. A lot of other teams had it right pre edge too, but when the look didn't crossover well onto the new templates most just went back to the 70's or 80's look which I think was a mistake for many of them.

 

Another team I would give as an example would be the sharks, could have easily just went back to the 91 set, but instead went all in on the teal and a more modern striping pattern with sublimated waves and stuck with their current logo instead of the more dated old logo. 

 

The caps are also in need of a refresh, and I think a modernized version of the screaming eagle in red, which was very successful with fans and sold well, would the best move forward, instead of going with the old 70's jerseys.

 

Carolina also seemed like they were finally going to get things right during the adidas change when they brought in a more modern looking version of their old red jersey, but they messed that whole thing up and now have a completely incoherent look and will just likely go back to original set instead just like the yotes and sens did instead of a more modern take which they almost had.

 

Edit: I really like what the oilers were doing bringing back the navy blue with the orange, I wish they at last made a navy jersey instead of an orange one. Teams like calgary didn't need to drop the black and go back to the 80's, they just needed to fix the mistakes of the edge era. I remember when colorado were wearing their edge jerseys, a lot of folks wanted a rockies/flag inspired rebrand based on their current third jersey, but once they fixed them and brought back the mountain stripes everyone loved it.

[The_Admiral]

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

I thought the idea was that they were made for their white uniforms (when names were mandatory for some games) and they never made separate nameplates for the orange jerseys, so they simply used the white ones when they had to wear them on the orange (and then made orange nameplates once names were required full time.)

 

Yeah, that's the genesis of it. But I felt like the roughness of it fit the Flyers well in a way it wouldn't have fit, say, one of the meme teams. It was a clever idea to dig it out of team history, but they took it too far doing it home and away. 

[Bmac]

I love the Flyers contrasting nameplates. It's a fun little quirk. Most of y'all are so damn rigid about every little thing that's out of the ordinary.

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, the admiral said:

 

Yeah, that's the genesis of it. But I felt like the roughness of it fit the Flyers well in a way it wouldn't have fit, say, one of the meme teams. It was a clever idea to dig it out of team history, but they took it too far doing it home and away. 

 

Oh I totally agree that it's silly on the white jersey.  

 

Regarding this rumor of new sweaters for next season, it sounds kinda similar to how they widened the sleeve stripe a bit in either late '70s or early '80s before going with the ever-popular black-trimmed version.  So if history holds, that version will be the next change.

 

Hockey Uniform DB shows what I'm talking about - though to be honest, I was searching game-worn jerseys during these errors and couldn't detect more than negligible changes IRL, despite the graphic.

 

http://www.nhluniforms.com/Flyers/Flyers.html

[IceCap]

17 hours ago, BuckDancer said:

I'm not questioning whether some of them were popular choices, I'm saying a lot of these were generally lazy decisions, especially arizona and ottawa.

"Going with an older design is lazy" is a limiting outlook and it's how you end up with pointlessly darkened colours, silver accents that don't add anything, or piping to nowhere. 

 

If a team decides they need to change their uniforms up all options should be open to them. Maybe that means a whole new design. Maybe that means an update of a classic or existing look. Maybe it means a straight re-adoption of an older design. 

 

Refining a classic look doesn't have to be bad, of course. It's baseball but my Blue Jays took their WS era identity and tweaked it enough that it works as an update. And it's probably one of baseball's best looks. 

But on the other hand... not every attempt to update a classic identity has worked. More teams have botched it then pulled it off tastefully. And so I'd rather a team be firm in saying "this is our classic look and it's what we want" then let themselves get talked into some of the nonsense we've seen. 

 

On 3/31/2023 at 7:02 PM, BuckDancer said:

Half the league has just lazily gone back to either wearing some old look (sabres, flames, oilers, pens, coyotes, isles)

Point of order... the Sabres actually did what you're advocating for. Their uniforms are not their classic design. They gave the logo a subtle but necessary rework and the striping is all new. 

 

17 hours ago, BuckDancer said:

I'm not questioning whether some of them were popular choices, I'm saying a lot of these were generally lazy decisions

I just wanted to touch on this. 

You're basically saying "screw what those fans wanted, my design philosophy trumps them."

 

Dude. If Calgary Flames fans want them to look like they did in the 80s then they probably should. It's when the team was their most successful anyway. 

 

Obviously design is subjective and no one uniform is going to be universally beloved, but it's hard to fault a company for giving their paying customers what they'd prefer. 

[SCL]

The Lindros era is the best the Flyers have ever looked. 

[monkeypower]

By definition, I guess going back to a previously worn jersey is "lazy" but it seems super reductive and an oddly hardline stance to say that since it was worn in the past, they can't go back. This isn't tech or medicine, it's jerseys. They don't always need to be evolving and teams can sure as heck rest on their laurels if they have a good jersey in their past.

 

I will say though, I think there have been times where teams have acquiesced to straight throwback/exactly what the team wore in the original era without taking the time to modernize or change the flaws that existed in the original set. I'm still not over the Flames dropping the Atlanta alternate captain patch, but hey, it's not what Al MacInnis wore in 1989 so it can't be there. I also think Arizona should have gone about lightening the brick and green because those jerseys are so dark with little contrast, but hey, Teppo Numminen wore those dark colours.

[CheeseHusker]

I think the Flyers best look was during the 1980 run; it was the last version of the 70s set but it had the darker orange. The panels were wide enough for the numbers.

Also, normal nameplates.

 

[spartacat_12]

17 hours ago, Bmac said:

I love the Flyers contrasting nameplates. It's a fun little quirk. Most of y'all are so damn rigid about every little thing that's out of the ordinary.

 

Bright orange jerseys with full length sleeve yokes was already pretty out of the ordinary for the NHL when the Flyers joined the league, and is still a very distinct look. The nameplates really don't add anything.

 

4 hours ago, IceCap said:

Refining a classic look doesn't have to be bad, of course. It's baseball but my Blue Jays took their WS era identity and tweaked it enough that it works as an update. And it's probably one of baseball's best looks. 

But on the other hand... not every attempt to update a classic identity has worked. More teams have botched it then pulled it off tastefully. And so I'd rather a team be firm in saying "this is our classic look and it's what we want" then let themselves get talked into some of the nonsense we've seen. 

 

Just look at the LA Rams as a recent example. They could have returned to the classic royal & yellow look and the fans would have been just fine, but they decided it was better to modernize it with gradients, bone coloured jerseys, & a bizarre custom font. 

[IceCap]

2 hours ago, spartacat_12 said:

Just look at the LA Rams as a recent example. They could have returned to the classic royal & yellow look and the fans would have been just fine, but they decided it was better to modernize it with gradients, bone coloured jerseys, & a bizarre custom font. 

Exactly. Obviously going forward is advantageous in some areas- tech and medicine like @monkeypower said. 

 

But jersey design? Logo design? It's all just aesthetics. A "modern" hockey jersey's design (keep in mind I'm saying design, not materials or cut) is not inherently better than a design from the 1980s the way an iPhone is a clear improvement over an 80s brickphone. 

 

Teams should have all the options open to them, and if the market and good taste point to something retro then go with something retro. 

"Innovation" in subjective aesthetics isn't noble in and of itself. If it were Oregon would routinely have the most beloved football uniforms in college football but they don't. 

[BuckDancer]

7 hours ago, IceCap said:

"Going with an older design is lazy" is a limiting outlook and it's how you end up with pointlessly darkened colours, silver accents that don't add anything, or piping to nowhere. 

 

If a team decides they need to change their uniforms up all options should be open to them. Maybe that means a whole new design. Maybe that means an update of a classic or existing look. Maybe it means a straight re-adoption of an older design. 

 

Refining a classic look doesn't have to be bad, of course. It's baseball but my Blue Jays took their WS era identity and tweaked it enough that it works as an update. And it's probably one of baseball's best looks. 

But on the other hand... not every attempt to update a classic identity has worked. More teams have botched it then pulled it off tastefully. And so I'd rather a team be firm in saying "this is our classic look and it's what we want" then let themselves get talked into some of the nonsense we've seen. 

 

Point of order... the Sabres actually did what you're advocating for. Their uniforms are not their classic design. They gave the logo a subtle but necessary rework and the striping is all new. 

 

I just wanted to touch on this. 

You're basically saying "screw what those fans wanted, my design philosophy trumps them."

 

Dude. If Calgary Flames fans want them to look like they did in the 80s then they probably should. It's when the team was their most successful anyway. 

 

Obviously design is subjective and no one uniform is going to be universally beloved, but it's hard to fault a company for giving their paying customers what they'd prefer. 

I'm not saying screw the fans and what they wanted, it just seems a lot of these teams had decent modern looks going into 2007, messed them up with the reebok jerseys, and instead of fixing the mistakes like the Blues did and coming up with something more modern and just as classy just went back to an old design, albeit a popular one. I guess what monkeypower said sort of fits with what I said, there are probably a lot of teams who could have come up with a more cleaned up/modernized look that still would have been popular without just straight up falling on an old favourite. 

 

Arizona had a plethora of options to go with when they just decided to go back to those super dark/dated 90's unis. I've seen dozens of concepts that are far superior to what they have now. Blending eras, colors, patterns, anything would have been better than just dressing up like it's 1996. The Avs on the other hand toned down their jerseys, modernized the font, simpler shoulder patches, fixed up the mismatching striping on the socks and the mountain stripes on their home jersey.

 

Even on these boards I see people talking about he wild just dropping their look and adopting the NS look full time and slapping their logo on the jersey. Again, a popular look, but is this really the best they can do? Worst part is it isn't even a wild jersey. Seems straight up lazy instead of constantly looking to improve what you have now, which they can easily do but instead are too focused on putting out ugly third jerseys that never even see the light of day.

[spartacat_12]

2 hours ago, BuckDancer said:

I'm not saying screw the fans and what they wanted, it just seems a lot of these teams had decent modern looks going into 2007, messed them up with the reebok jerseys, and instead of fixing the mistakes like the Blues did and coming up with something more modern and just as classy just went back to an old design, albeit a popular one.

 

You keep referencing the Blues, but they did exactly what you're complaining about. Here is what they wore pre-Edge:

And here is what they started wearing in 2014:

 

[BuckDancer]

39 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said:

 

You keep referencing the Blues, but they did exactly what you're complaining about. Here is what they wore pre-Edge:

And here is what they started wearing in 2014:

 

My complaint is teams like arizona, calgary, the pens or others using looks they haven't been using in decades after messing up a decent look in the reebok era, instead of just fixing the mistakes from 2007.

 

The blues didn't really go back to an old look in the same sense as the other teams. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The blues have pretty much worn the same thing since 1998, albeit in slight variations. What I'm talking about is St. Louis' jerseys didn't transition over well in 2007 like many other teams, but wisely stuck with their modern look and fixed the edge era mistakes and improved upon the 1998 originals with straightened arm stripes, better sock stripes, adding separation between the gold and white on the blues jersey, little things like that, instead of just dropping it all together for the 70's light blue/gold look or some other retro look. You can't compare the blues to a team like the oilers or sabres who had long since dropped those 80's jerseys.

 

A similar comparison that I would draw here is imagine if the NJD's fixed their current jerseys by going back to their cup era 92-17 jerseys or an even more improved version of it. The devils never really dropped the look, just messed it up when they switched over to adidas. What my issue would be is if they just said "well, the black and red just isn't working anymore" and then they just decided to go back to red and green 80's era devils look instead of just fixing their superior, more modern look. 

 

 

[The_Admiral]

The Blues' current uniforms and pre-Edge uniforms are still fairly different designs, and the current ones are worse, with yellow stripes on white and white numbers instead of yellow. It's not quite the system-restore that we saw from the Senators, Coyotes, Flames, and the Buccaneers over in the NFL.

 

'ate Pronger, 'ate the Blues, simple as, but those little details but this ahead of what they wear now.

[CreamSoda]

Red Wings away whites vs Maple Leafs home blues may just be the best matchup in sports. 
 

Two classic logos.  Two classic uniforms with unique striping patterns. Perfect color balance and contrast. 

[ujju2]

On 4/1/2023 at 10:41 AM, spartacat_12 said:

 

Almost every example you've provided has been extremely popular with the respective fanbases, so it sounds like you just want teams to change for the sake of it. Maybe this just shows that most teams got it right on their first try and never should have changed in the first place.

 

 

I don't think you're wrong, but it's funny you used the image you did, considering those are what I would like for them to return to.