Jump to content

2007-2008 NHL Logos & Uniforms


BBM

Recommended Posts

Just as I suspected, the Thrashers are using new colors for their lettering on the back. Instead of the white letters with the yellow outline that they used on their previous sweaters, the new-style road whites are using navy-blue letters with a yellow outline. They look.....very strange.

Noting that about all I can see because of the net is the white part of the jersey with the letters... I think they look clean and sharp with the names on a white background.

I'm not sure the Thrashers upgraded, but I think they came out looking good. I never much cared for their navy jersey, so in that sense they might have upgraded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I'm really enjoying the no-shoulder-patch Leafs. Not so much the no bottom stripes, but that wasn't really noticeable throughout the game.

The no bottom stripes wasn't noticeable to you throughout the game? That's what I thought looked the oddest... it'll take some getting used to.

---

Chris Creamer
Founder/Editor, SportsLogos.Net

 

"The Mothership" News Facebook X/Twitter Instagram

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really enjoying the no-shoulder-patch Leafs. Not so much the no bottom stripes, but that wasn't really noticeable throughout the game.

The no bottom stripes wasn't noticeable to you throughout the game? That's what I thought looked the oddest... it'll take some getting used to.

Yeah. That's my only major problem with them, although it is a fairly big problem. They're not terrible, not gaudy, like many other teams, but it's amazing what a difference something as simple as two stripes can make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really enjoying the no-shoulder-patch Leafs. Not so much the no bottom stripes, but that wasn't really noticeable throughout the game.

The no bottom stripes wasn't noticeable to you throughout the game? That's what I thought looked the oddest... it'll take some getting used to.

Maybe it was because I was watching low-res broadbrand feed of the game... very pixelated. That was probably the difference... :lol:

Wade-sig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he wore #97 and i hated that

:blink:

I hated that he wore it, JR is #27...it's like Gretzky and Mario playing on a different team wearing 19 and 16...just not right.

I know he wore 27 in Chicago, I was just wondering if San Jose has the rule that no player can use numbers over a certain number like New Jersey does (that's why Weekes is 40 and not 80 this season), and I also believe that Ottawa did at one point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he wore #97 and i hated that

:blink:

I hated that he wore it, JR is #27...it's like Gretzky and Mario playing on a different team wearing 19 and 16...just not right.

I know he wore 27 in Chicago, I was just wondering if San Jose has the rule that no player can use numbers over a certain number like New Jersey does (that's why Weekes is 40 and not 80 this season), and I also believe that Ottawa did at one point.

No, San Jose has no limitation on that. Torrey Mitchell was wearing #69 (of all numbers) tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I visited the Penguins team store at Mellon Arena today. I was planning on buying a home Max Talbot edge jersey, and found out I'd have to order it. I decided to inspect the quality of the replica jerseys, and noticed some weird inconsistencies.

First, both the replicas and authentics used nameplates. Okay, fine, but on the replica jerseys, the letters on the nameplate were much skinner than the actual jerseys, giving it a very cheap look. There was also some discrepancy in the size of the captain's C and alternate A's. The A on the Gonchar I saw was much smaller than the C's on the many, many Crosby jerseys.

In the end, I decided not to be an early adopter. I'm going to wait and see if Reebok decides to churn out some quality replicas or if this is just going to be par for the course. I guess the only real problem with the replica was the lettering issue, but it was enough to keep me from ordering.

As a side note, didn't Alexander Mogilny wear #89 with New Jersey?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, San Jose has no limitation on that. Torrey Mitchell was wearing #69 (of all numbers) tonight.

I hate when players do that because they think it's funny. It's not! It's just dumb. Oooooh *giggle* look at me I'm ****ing 5 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh man those new Sharks jerseys are absolutely beautiful. By far the best of the newly released unis. Period.

Maybe a bit biased, but im very proud of what the Sharks have done here, very proud.

spacer.png

On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said:
She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

he wore #97 and i hated that

:blink:

I hated that he wore it, JR is #27...it's like Gretzky and Mario playing on a different team wearing 19 and 16...just not right.

I know he wore 27 in Chicago, I was just wondering if San Jose has the rule that no player can use numbers over a certain number like New Jersey does (that's why Weekes is 40 and not 80 this season), and I also believe that Ottawa did at one point.

As a fan of JR's since his one junior year here with the hull olympiques i truly believe this is his way of telling us that this is his final year... he started out as #27 and will go out wearing #27. just my opinion. 28 games played, 34goals, 36 assists for 70 points... what a monster he was.. great now i am all nostalgic

sig.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh man those new Sharks jerseys are absolutely beautiful. By far the best of the newly released unis. Period.

Maybe a bit biased, but im very proud of what the Sharks have done here, very proud.

Just curious what you thought about their last set. If you love these, then I'm assuming that you didn't like those. I personally loved their former set, and really am not a fan of their new contrived traditional set.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had some good ideas, but they assigned them to the wrong teams.

I didn't know RBK assigned templates to teams.

Have you been under a rock or just not cared enough to read the previous 240 pages of this thread?

Apparently you haven't either.

Reebok provided a bunch of Templates to *every* team. It was then up to each team to decide which template they went with, and how best to use their design and colors with those templates.

Reebok *assigned* a team nothing.

Thanks, that's what my point was. Guess he didn't comprehend that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't, up until now, really minded the "apron-string" piping so much, aesthetically speaking. But man, seeing it in action, it really messes with where they can put the A's and C's. Check out Florida, where they've put the A nearly in the center of the jersey, right above the logo:

http://cache.gettyimages.com/xc/76826546.j...C251F5382E91426

And then check out Edmonton, who've actually put the A on top of the piping:

http://cache.gettyimages.com/xc/76851443.j...4EE622D1A329B0E

And similarly with Philadelphia:

http://cache.gettyimages.com/xc/76814032.j...0DFABD1234C9E9E

Since captain's C's and A's are necessary elements of a hockey jersey, it seems like this would be a pretty basic thing they'd have to think about at the design stage. Instead, they almost looked slapped on as an afterthought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every Sharks jersey design has shown signs of this. The Teal changes under different lighting, flash, white balances, etc. I have an original '91 jersey, and under different lights it can look like a deep blue teal, a green-y sea teal, and a washed out baby-blue like teal. The second generation jerseys were a little better, but they'd range from a deep royal-blue teal to a light baby-blue teal under different lighting. These ones tend to stay more greenish in most lights, but again can range from that deep greeny-teal to a very light almost baby-blue teal.

Every Sharks design has used a different shade of Teal as well...from:

SanJoseSharks_FRC_1998_SOL.jpg

...to:

SanJoseSharks_FRC_2007_SOL.jpg

...to the present:

SanJoseSharks_FRC_9999_SOL.jpg

That last set is SO much more Green and So much darker than the pictures I've seen. I wish I had the Pantone Textile colors (or RBK fabric colors) to figure out what they're doing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, San Jose has no limitation on that. Torrey Mitchell was wearing #69 (of all numbers) tonight.

I hate when players do that because they think it's funny. It's not! It's just dumb. Oooooh *giggle* look at me I'm ****ing 5 years old.

I'm pretty certain he was assigned that. Most players in rookie camps are given highers from 40 up and it's sometimes inevitable that someone would be given 69. And anytime a rookie is brought into the main training camp, they keep the same number just to make things easier. Someone I went to school with named Stuart MacRae actually played in the Senators rookie camp in 2004 and also wore 69.

champssig2.png
Follow me on Twitter if you care: @Animal_Clans.

My opinion may or may not be the same as yours. The choice is up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, San Jose has no limitation on that. Torrey Mitchell was wearing #69 (of all numbers) tonight.

I hate when players do that because they think it's funny. It's not! It's just dumb. Oooooh *giggle* look at me I'm ****ing 5 years old.

I'm pretty certain he was assigned that. Most players in rookie camps are given highers from 40 up and it's sometimes inevitable that someone would be given 69. And anytime a rookie is brought into the main training camp, they keep the same number just to make things easier. Someone I went to school with named Stuart MacRae actually played in the Senators rookie camp in 2004 and also wore 69.

Yeah, I don't think tryouts get to "choose" their number, it's just handed to them.

On the subject of "cute" numbers though who can forget Martin Biron's '00' which caused a rule change on numbers that rules out negatives, 00, more than 2 digits, and exponents but, hey, it doesn't say anything about factorials! And didn't Steve Heinz wear #57?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, San Jose has no limitation on that. Torrey Mitchell was wearing #69 (of all numbers) tonight.

I hate when players do that because they think it's funny. It's not! It's just dumb. Oooooh *giggle* look at me I'm ****ing 5 years old.

I think you're the 5 year old here, if the first think you think of when you see a number is sexual positions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.