Seattle Seahawks

[andrewharrington]

I didn't really do a whole lot of work here, because I like the ideas behind the Seahawks' look. I wanted to get rid of some of the drabness in the uniforms, so I reverted back to a brighter blue color to add some life. Beyond that, I retooled the logo so it matches the uniform stripes, got rid of the contrasting sleeves, used numbers similar to the Cardinals' numerals, and added new socks to coordinate with the rest of the set.

[Brian in Boston]

I'm not a fan of the brighter Blue. It just doesn't say Seahawks to me. Further, given that it doesn't appear in the team's logo, the use of the brighter Blue comes across as a rather arbitrary choice.

Also, while I see what you were trying to achieve by referencing the uniform stripe in the logo, I prefer the Seahawks' current logo better.

[kewp80]

Not having the lighter shade of blue in the logo takes a couple points off, but I could live with the color though. I would make the helmet silver though, the blue doesn't look right there.

Perhaps take the hawk head logo they have now, and make the bottom part of the neck (which is that weird bluish color they invented) and make that part of the logo the lighter blue. Just a thought.

[chestnutz]

Personally I like what you've done with the logo and that dark blue is great, and I think it'd look very nice on the uniforms. I think they'd look good like the Thanksgiving uniforms the Lions wear only replace the royal with navy and a couple stripes (navy jersey, silver helmet and pants).

[Jezus_Ghoti]

Wow, I don't think I could dislike that shade of blue any more. I think you've made a serious mistake here. The Seahawks current blues are reminiscent of a stormy day, which is perfect for Seattle. This shade makes me want to sit in the sun and have a picnic.

[leafsfan_101]

Personally, I love these jerseys. The blue is okay and it definatly gives this jersey life. Nice work.

[leafsfan_101]

Personally, I love these jerseys. The blue is okay and it definatly gives this jersey life. Nice work.

[RedFalcon7]

hmmm... the uniforms look ok, i dont hate them, i dont love them... not a whole lot of difference, but enough of one to notice... i dont think im down with the logo though, sorry...

[andrewharrington]

The blue is not showing as intended. It's supposed to be more of a royal blue, maybe similar to the Lions' hue, but a little darker. Here it is in the current blue, which I like as well. I also did this one in a stormy blue-grey. The goal here was to do a color that is dark enough to be a legit home jersey but also merge the current look and the old look, given that it's grey like they used to wear on their helmets and pants, but also a muted blue like they currently rock. It's different; sort of a chameleon color. SEE FIRST POST.

[rtrich11]

... Further, given that it doesn't appear in the team's logo, the use of the brighter Blue comes across as a rather arbitrary choice.

I gotta go with this. I'd like to see it in the logo to tie it together. Even Jacksonville has the teal tongue.

[andrewharrington]

I just don't really see that as a problem. The Cowboys' logo doesn't have silver in it. The Packers' logo has no yellow in it. The Vikings' logo doesn't have purple in it. The Bucs' logo has no pewter in it. I could go on. Plenty of teams do this, and I bet you didn't notice because these logos usually appear on a background of the other team color(s), even though they don't contain the other team color. You probably only noticed it here because I put the logo on a white background. Here is the throwback-ish set that I did, as well. On this one, I did the stripes to match the logo. Again, this blue goes all whack when I save the image. It's supposed to be royal blue. SEE FIRST POST.

[chestnutz]

That blue in your last post in the second concept is great. It's very different, unique, something sports needs with all the red/blue, black/red etc.

EDIT: You just posted right before me, the color I mean is this one.

[GFB]

I think you aren't too far off, so I wouldn't throw the Pacific/Royalish Blue out just yet. I think it would look a little better with a silver helmet and silver pants on the home, so you can negate some of the royal blue monochromatic-overload you know they would end up using.

This is very eye-catching for some reason. Maybe it's the lack of saturation in the grey that is allowing the navy blue and electric green "pop" against it....

And who cares if a logo doesn't have the team color in it? Is there a design rule book somwehere? Usually, when a logo is on a completely neutral background, it tends to "pop" more because none of its elements are hidden by the color of the background.

[andrewharrington]

I think you aren't too far off, so I wouldn't throw the Pacific/Royalish Blue out just yet. I think it would look a little better with a silver helmet and silver pants on the home, so you can negate some of the royal blue monochromatic-overload you know they would end up using.

This is very eye-catching for some reason. Maybe it's the lack of saturation in the grey that is allowing the navy blue and electric green "pop" against it....

And who cares if a logo doesn't have the team color in it? Is there a design rule book somwehere? Usually, when a logo is on a completely neutral background, it tends to "pop" more because none of its elements are hidden by the color of the background.

Thanks for that. I knew I wasn't crazy putting out a logo that didn't have all the team colors in it. For some reason, I really like that grey one, too. Maybe it's just the fact that it's a unique color, but I really like it for the reasons you stated. I actually got the idea from an ESPN the Magazine article on Shaun Alexander. You know how all their photos have that crisp, muted quality? Shaun's photos were muted like that and the pacific blue looked like pacific grey, and looked really good, so I tried it, and it paid off.

[rtrich11]

The Cowboys' logo doesn't have silver in it. The Packers' logo has no yellow in it. The Vikings' logo doesn't have purple in it.The Bucs' logo has no pewter in it.

The Cowboys don't have silver jerseys. The Bucs don't have pewter jerseys. The Packers logo in many scenarios has a yellow outline, and the Vikings logo does have purple (headband), but it's so outdated it's barely usable for a reference.

I am a believer that the only rule is that there are no rules, too. I'm just gonna be over here on the other side of the fence thinking this one needs that color involved. / (hello from over here)

[andrewharrington]

The Cowboys' logo doesn't have silver in it. The Packers' logo has no yellow in it. The Vikings' logo doesn't have purple in it.The Bucs' logo has no pewter in it.

The Cowboys don't have silver jerseys. The Bucs don't have pewter jerseys. The Packers logo in many scenarios has a yellow outline, and the Vikings logo does have purple (headband), but it's so outdated it's barely usable for a reference.

I am a believer that the only rule is that there are no rules, too. I'm just gonna be over here on the other side of the fence thinking this one needs that color involved. / (hello from over here)

Touche, but the Cowboys do have silver helmets and pants and the Bucs do have pewter helmets and pants, I'll give you the Packers, and I was talking about the Vikings' horn logo, not the viking logo. Do they even use the viking logo on anything anymore? You see the horn almost exclusively now since they took the viking logo off the field and the uniforms.

[tBBP]

The Cowboys' logo doesn't have silver in it. The Packers' logo has no yellow in it. The Vikings' logo doesn't have purple in it.The Bucs' logo has no pewter in it.

The Cowboys don't have silver jerseys. The Bucs don't have pewter jerseys. The Packers logo in many scenarios has a yellow outline, and the Vikings logo does have purple (headband), but it's so outdated it's barely usable for a reference.

I am a believer that the only rule is that there are no rules, too. I'm just gonna be over here on the other side of the fence thinking this one needs that color involved. / (hello from over here)

Touche, but the Cowboys do have silver helmets and pants and the Bucs do have pewter helmets and pants, I'll give you the Packers, and I was talking about the Vikings' horn logo, not the viking logo. Do they even use the viking logo on anything anymore? You see the horn almost exclusively now since they took the viking logo off the field and the uniforms.

I presume you're referring to the Norseman logo. You can find it stuck in that stupid little white space above the purple 3/4 stripe on the white pants (and the purple space above the white 3/4 stripe on the purple pants). It's also still camping out right above the player surname plates on the backs of the jerseys.

(And on a related note...who'da eva thunk the Arizona Cardinals would have been an innovator in NFL uniform design elements? Although i really blame the Dallas Mavericks for starting this whole "logo above the nameplate" madness, anyway...they were the first team I remember seeing do that, with their latest uniform overhaul.)

About your concepts...of the several you posted, I'm leaning more towards that more muted "Puget Slate"-based set. makes both the navy AND the lil' bit of lime green that's in there show up and "pop out" a good bit more. Although I can't see the justification for using the AZ Cards' numbers (and no it ain't a coincidence that I just noticed that after having previously mentioned the Cards up above--ain't THAT a pickle?)...but that's neither here nor there.

Overall...nice piece of work you done did here, 'Drew. Hell...most of the work you do is rather nice. My only lil' suggestion to this Seahawk set? The wrap-around bird on the sleeves. That was like the one most distinguishable feature of the previous 'Hawk set...would love to see that brought back somehow. But somehow I also get the feeling you tried that, and didn't like how it turned out.

To reiterate...overall, quite nice, my friend.

[andrewharrington]

Well, in the original post, I talked about the numbers. They're similar to the Cardinals' numerals, but not quite the same. The justification lies in the rounded corners that echo the shapes and movements of a bird a little better than the right angles of the plain block numbers. I was pissed when the Cardinals rolled out those numbers because I had made a few concepts with similar numbers not too long before.

I actually didn't even try the wrap around bird on the sleeves for one reason: I hate it. It always looked like a tacky, gimmicky screened graphic on a sleeve; the opposite of classy, which it was, at least to me. I also hated the fact that there was a bird on the helmet, and then the same thing on the sleeve. That's a big pet peeve of mine.

[andrewharrington]

That's a double.

[Vicious]

i think you might be able to keep that lighter blue and incorporate it more into the scheme if you use it for the stripe instead of the electric green. y much replace the green with the lighter blue...i think it would look cool. you would probably have to use white for the blue pants...idk...just throwing it out there.