powersurge Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 el double posto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 As much as I love the new scheme, there is a case to be made for the original set.It has been postulated on these boards (specifically in defense of the Padres' sand-gold road uniforms) that one key to a good uniform design is the eye's ability to instantly distinguish it on the field. Even out of the corner of your eye, you know who's who on the field.By that criteria, the creamsicle Bucs had the best design in the NFL. Thank you, my friend. Oh boy....make sure you send him a Christmas card. I should point out that I roundly criticized that criteria on the other thread. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quantum Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Its funny too, I hate the old Bucs look but I don't mind the Tennessee Vols look. They're basically the same! I can't figure that one out so don't ask me why Winning does wonders. The Bucs uniforms equate to losing. "One of my concerns is shysters show up and take advantage of people's good will and generosity". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leedsunited Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Its funny too, I hate the old Bucs look but I don't mind the Tennessee Vols look. They're basically the same! I can't figure that one out so don't ask me why Winning does wonders. The Bucs uniforms equate to losing.That's unfortunate. Some of my favorite designs in the NFL (the classic Falcon red uni, the orange Bucs) have been equated with some pretty crappy teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tBBP Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Its funny too, I hate the old Bucs look but I don't mind the Tennessee Vols look. They're basically the same! I can't figure that one out so don't ask me why Winning does wonders. The Bucs uniforms equate to losing.That's unfortunate. Some of my favorite designs in the NFL (the classic Falcon red uni, the orange Bucs) have been equated with some pretty crappy teams. Not to mention the Arizona Cardinals from about the '70s on up til about halfway through the '90s. Loved them. Still do. Eric Metcalf, Dan Dierdorf...that set. *Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. || dribbble || Behance || Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powersurge Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Its funny too, I hate the old Bucs look but I don't mind the Tennessee Vols look. They're basically the same! I can't figure that one out so don't ask me why Winning does wonders. The Bucs uniforms equate to losing.That's unfortunate. Some of my favorite designs in the NFL (the classic Falcon red uni, the orange Bucs) have been equated with some pretty crappy teams. I still think the Falcons should have gone back to a red helmet and jerseys similar to the old days when they were updating their look a couple of years back. The whole black helmet with red jersey just doesn't work for me. It seems like a bad compromise between old and new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 Well, keep in mind that it wasn't designed that way - the helmet was intended for a black jersey. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powersurge Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 And with a black jersey it'll look fine....the red jersey is gawd-awful!I can even stomach them wearing black helmets with red jersey so long as they pair it up with BLACK pants. The white pants just don't look right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSky Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 I wish the Vikings helmet horn was larger like this.Note that the Chiefs also have a larger arrowhead in this pic. Lots of helmets back then had huge logos because the uni was designed with the view from the stands in mind, not how they looked on TV. Take the Saints and their only-the-earhole-stopped-it-from-being-even-bigger fleur-de-lis:Today's logo looks tiny in comparison: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickV Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 I wish the Vikings helmet horn was larger like this.Note that the Chiefs also have a larger arrowhead in this pic. Lots of helmets back then had huge logos because the uni was designed with the view from the stands in mind, not how they looked on TV. Take the Saints and their only-the-earhole-stopped-it-from-being-even-bigger fleur-de-lis:Today's logo looks tiny in comparison:I noticed that too. The Steelers logo also looks smaller now than originally used. I really like the larger Chiefs and Saints logos as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 In part, the Saints' logo looks smaller because they added two unnecessary (to my eye) outlines.... The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSky Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 In part, the Saints' logo looks smaller because they added two unnecessary (to my eye) outlines...."They" in this case being NFL Properties, not the Saints. Read in an article a few years ago that the league marketing people thought the outlines would make the logo "pop" more (pop = a %$*@#@$* overused term!!). I agree it's unnecessary.Speaking of jumbo logos, love these 60's style helmet renditions. I think Scott Player did the facemasks... See all the teams here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powersurge Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 In part, the Saints' logo looks smaller because they added two unnecessary (to my eye) outlines...."They" in this case being NFL Properties, not the Saints. Read in an article a few years ago that the league marketing people thought the outlines would make the logo "pop" more (pop = a %$*@#@$* overused term!!). I agree it's unnecessary.I have to disagree, I think it pops much more now than before. Its similar to how the Dallas Cowboy 'star' pops because of the double outlines. I believe that is kind of what they were trying to do with the 'fleur'...but I can't prove that statement, so don't ask me to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSky Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 In part, the Saints' logo looks smaller because they added two unnecessary (to my eye) outlines...."They" in this case being NFL Properties, not the Saints. Read in an article a few years ago that the league marketing people thought the outlines would make the logo "pop" more (pop = a %$*@#@$* overused term!!). I agree it's unnecessary.I have to disagree, I think it pops much more now than before. Its similar to how the Dallas Cowboy 'star' pops because of the double outlines. I believe that is kind of what they were trying to do with the 'fleur'...but I can't prove that statement, so don't ask me to. That's exactly what they were doing, but I think this looks just as good: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 In part, the Saints' logo looks smaller because they added two unnecessary (to my eye) outlines...."They" in this case being NFL Properties, not the Saints. Read in an article a few years ago that the league marketing people thought the outlines would make the logo "pop" more (pop = a %$*@#@$* overused term!!). I agree it's unnecessary.I don't suppose you could substantiate that, could you?Don't see why they'd bring such pressure on the Saints and not other clubs with solo outlines (or did they force the 49ers as well?). The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutyfree Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Double outlines on numbers and logos are a plague upon sports uniforms. Completely unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickV Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 In part, the Saints' logo looks smaller because they added two unnecessary (to my eye) outlines...."They" in this case being NFL Properties, not the Saints. Read in an article a few years ago that the league marketing people thought the outlines would make the logo "pop" more (pop = a %$*@#@$* overused term!!). I agree it's unnecessary.I don't suppose you could substantiate that, could you?Don't see why they'd bring such pressure on the Saints and not other clubs with solo outlines (or did they force the 49ers as well?).The Niners for sure need to get rid of that stupid outline around the helmet logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSky Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 In part, the Saints' logo looks smaller because they added two unnecessary (to my eye) outlines...."They" in this case being NFL Properties, not the Saints. Read in an article a few years ago that the league marketing people thought the outlines would make the logo "pop" more (pop = a %$*@#@$* overused term!!). I agree it's unnecessary.I don't suppose you could substantiate that, could you?Don't see why they'd bring such pressure on the Saints and not other clubs with solo outlines (or did they force the 49ers as well?).Substantiate it how? By finding a link to an article I read 7 years ago in the Times-Picayune? It was around the time they changed the logo...their website (nola.com) doesn't even seem to have an archive.The new outlined version debuted in 2000. What I remember was that the article said both steps taken - reducing the size of the logo and adding the outline(s) - were done because NFL Properties felt the result would be that the logo would "pop" (exact word they used) more on the helmet. I think that theory works much better on a simple shape like the Cowboys' star than a complex, curved shape like the fleur-de-lis.As you can see by the closeup in my sig, they added a single black outline, separated from the white one so as to let the helmet color show through to create a second gold outline. This is different from how the Cowboys did theirs.Also note that the apparent size of the logo on a helmet can vary greatly depending on the size of the helmet. Jon Stinchcomb's logo looks smaller than Dante Stallworth's in this pic (Stallworth is the smaller guy, 2nd to the right from Aaron Brooks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 I think the outline on the Saints' logo looks fantastic. There is probably not a need to separate the black from the white, but either way IMO it was an upgrade. "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 More sharing options...
quantum Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 The Saints outlined logo is an upgrade. I always thought the lack of contrast between the white and old gold was a problem. "One of my concerns is shysters show up and take advantage of people's good will and generosity". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.