RAting the NFC Helmets

[infrared41]

Can I just point out (as a Packers fan) that without the history, Green Bay would have one of the worst helmets in the NFL?

And without the "history" the Sistine Chapel would just be some building with a mural on the ceiling. Why are history and tradition such poison to some people around here?

[Gothamite]

An excellent question.

[illwauk]

Can I just point out (as a Packers fan) that without the history, Green Bay would have one of the worst helmets in the NFL?

And without the "history" the Sistine Chapel would just be some building with a mural on the ceiling. Why are history and tradition such poison to some people around here?

When judging something purely on aesthetics, why SHOULD tradition come into play?

BTW, do you realize that within the past 3 days you accused me of being BOTH a hyper-traditionalist and someone who sees tradition as "poison?"

[infrared41]

BTW, do you realize that within the past 3 days you accused me of being BOTH a hyper-traditionalist and someone who sees tradition as "poison?"

When did I accuse you of being a "hyper-traditionalist?" I don't remember it. As old school as I am I can't imagine why I would, but if I did I am sure I had a great reason. And the poison comment wasn't directed at you specifically.

When judging something purely on aesthetics, why SHOULD tradition come into play?

Fair enough but, why should it NOT come into play?

[random_ax]

Why not just start a thread saying "I don't like the Bears and Vikings helmets" instead of giving all other 30 teams an A? At least give us some variety instead of giving everyone an A.

Because I judged them how i saw them. The NFL does a really good job with logos. Bears and Vikings...not so much. My criteria was not to base any of the choices on sentimental tradition. In each case, Iasked myself, what would I do to replace the current logo on the helmet and in almost every case...the logo they now have fits the team name.

I might not love the Packers logo but what would you put there in its place? A map of Wisconsin...the word PACKERS?

[Gothamite]

You could put it with any other representation of the letters "G" or "GB".

Just because you can't think of another way to do it doesn't make it a good logo.

[tBBP]

You could put it with any other representation of the letters "G" or "GB".

Just because you can't think of another way to do it doesn't make it a good logo.

That old-school logo in your sig, if it was vectorized and freshened up, might look mighty good set inside a short-corner octagonal shape, "Packer" green in color set against those "cheesehead" yellow helmets...

(That's about the ONLY concept clue I have given or will give out as to what I'm up to!!! )

[random_ax]

You could put it with any other representation of the letters "G" or "GB".

Just because you can't think of another way to do it doesn't make it a good logo.

Again, my criteria was looking at the helmets as if all 16 of the NFC helmets were new and never been seen before. Tradition would not be used then. So, if the art department came to me with the Packer helmet and said "we came up with this" I'd give them an A. I like the G...... It's a kind of football shape...GB would have been too busy....wouldn't prefer it to PACKERS or a map of Wisconsin or a wedge of cheese .....it's an A....... now, if I was comparing it to the Seahawks or Buccaneer logo...no, I wouldn't rate it that high....but given the options for what you can do with the name Packers? It's okay. The reason my beloved Bears score so low is the C is not a logo the NFL would choose today if the Bears were a new team. And that is the criteria I used. The C (and you recall it's never been seen before 2008) is boring when you could choose either the Bear that adorns the merchandise or a bear claw or something else besice the wishbone C.

[Jimmy!]

You could put it with any other representation of the letters "G" or "GB".

Just because you can't think of another way to do it doesn't make it a good logo.

Again, my criteria was looking at the helmets as if all 16 of the NFC helmets were new and never been seen before. Tradition would not be used then. So, if the art department came to me with the Packer helmet and said "we came up with this" I'd give them an A. I like the G...... It's a kind of football shape...GB would have been too busy....wouldn't prefer it to PACKERS or a map of Wisconsin or a wedge of cheese .....it's an A....... now, if I was comparing it to the Seahawks or Buccaneer logo...no, I wouldn't rate it that high....but given the options for what you can do with the name Packers? It's okay. The reason my beloved Bears score so low is the C is not a logo the NFL would choose today if the Bears were a new team. And that is the criteria I used. The C (and you recall it's never been seen before 2008) is boring when you could choose either the Bear that adorns the merchandise or a bear claw or something else besice the wishbone C.

Then you've contradicted yourself. Some of the teams you grade, you reference the previous logo (Philly, Atlanta, Tampa Bay to name a few). I agree with some of the things you've said, but if you're truly grading brand new helmets, Tampa Bay for example, Bucco Bruce never existed.

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but is there any reason why teams don't or can't use alternate helmets? I'd love to see Seattle roll out the silver one they proposed back in '01.

[Gothamite]

I find it really hard to reconcile this statement:

Again, my criteria was looking at the helmets as if all 16 of the NFC helmets were new and never been seen before. Tradition would not be used then. So, if the art department came to me with the Packer helmet and said "we came up with this" I'd give them an A.

with this one:

The reason my beloved Bears score so low is the C is not a logo the NFL would choose today if the Bears were a new team. And that is the criteria I used.

I can't believe that you could apply consistent criteria to the two logos and come up with such wildly divergent repsonses.

The C (and you recall it's never been seen before 2008) is boring when you could choose either the Bear that adorns the merchandise or a bear claw or something else besice the wishbone C.

Ah, but that's something else entirely. Now I get it - you're not looking at them in the context of if they were just being pitched by a designer, but in context with their already-existing logos. So most teams score high because they don't have other logos in their identity packages (historical or current) that better suit a helmet.

[tBBP]

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but is there any reason why teams don't or can't use alternate helmets? I'd love to see Seattle roll out the silver one they proposed back in '01.

That has something to do with the NFL not allowing a team to use two different helmets for its team uniforms...unless that other helmet happens to be part of an "alternate" (see throwback) uni package. I, for one, would have loved to see that silver 'Hawk dome come to fruition...initially. But looking at the colors the Sea Hawks employ, along with how they choose to pair their uniforms, I don't see where in the world the silver domes would have fit in. They'd almost certainly need silver pants to balance things out. Probably would have looked okay, but with that "Seahawk Blue" color they have (the one I call "Puget Slate") already looking close enough to a shade of gray, they'd end up looking something like silver/gray/silver. Just two cents that may not matter to anyone.

The thing I'd like to see NFL teams do is concoct a TRULY ALTERNATE uniform...something unlike anything else in their package. Sure, throwbacks are nice, to reinvoke nostalgia, but how about a whole 'nother look for those who like to see something truly unique and different?

BUT...that's a discussion for another time...in another thread.

And now...having said that, I'll throw my two cents into the mix. Criteria: stripped completely of any ties to tradition and/or history, based purely on aesthetic appeal; divided by conference; graded on a four-point grading system, against nothing but the helmets themselves. One additional note: uniqueness counts for a lot here, as in original design, as in unique colors/logos...that type of thing.

4-PERFECT (or damn-near close to it)

3-NICE

2-DECENT (but indifferent)

1-"BLAH"

So here we go...

NORTH

BEARS: There is absolutely nothing appealing to me about that wishbone "C" at all. Having it stuck to a navy helmet so dark it borders on black, and you have what's a pretty boring and uninteresting look. Don't hate it...it just does nothing for me. Doesn't help that another team in another league uses a similar-looking wishbone "C" as its logo, either. 1

LIONS: This is more or less due to the logo on the helmet than the helmet itself. It's a pretty good logo...it gets the job done. Plus, that Honolulu Blue bounced off the silver helmet creates a nice effect...nice color pairing. BUT...the useless addition of black costs this thing a point. 3

PACKERS: It's the logo again..but not to the degree of the wishbone "C". I actually don't have a complaint about the oval "G" logo itself, but the city's name is in two parts, so to me, I think a "B" should be paired with that "G". HOWEVER...the Pack is the only team in the NFL with a yellow shell, and uniqueness counts for a lot here. 3.5

VIKINGS: Only because folklore has had many of us believe for so long that Vikings wore horns on their helmets, the horns depicted on this helmet make this helmet unique and easily identifiable. The addition of the black details wasn't really needed, but that's neither here or there in the grander scheme of things here. (Plus, the helmet is a nice shade of purple.) Damn near perfect. 4

WEST

CARDINALS: Liking the bird logo. Stuck to the sides of their white helmets, it actually looks rather nice. Not remarkable...but nice. It's the gray facemask that costs the Redbirds percentage points here. It's the only deduction I can think of, other than the overall look looking a little too milquetoast for my tastes. 2.5

49ERS: The interlocking "SF" oval logo isn't exactly awe-inspiring, but, the colors do look nice together. Decent. 3

SEAHAWKS: The "wraparound" birdhead design is a very nice touch. I don't have a problem with the birdhead itself; it's more so with the colors. The helmet logo, though it's outlined in white, still blends in with the background (shell color), which is a deduction in my book. Other than that, though, if I saw all 16 helmets sitting on a table, this would probably be one of the first ones I'd pick up and take a closer look at. 3.5

RAMS: I'm going to separate my mind from the royal and yellow(gold) days of old for this one. The Ram horns, while damn near obvious, still create quite a unique, literally recognizeable effect for these helmets. There is no question as to what the team name is by looking at the helmets. HOWEVER...the horns still seem to be missing something...like an effect of some sort. SO... 3.5

EAST

COWBOYS: I'm going to be bluntly honest here...that star on that helmet does absolutely nothing for me. It's just a star. Wow...nothing unique or readily identifiable about it at all. No one would be able to tell what team the helmet was for if they never saw it before. That the silver helmet also has a gray facemask only further increases its "blah" factor. 1

GIANTS: At least in this instance, the "ny" has SOME character to it in the way that it is rendered. However, having said that, it's still too generic. The helmet is a nice shade of blue, and the red stripe does help a little, but not much. 1.5

EAGLES: THIS one I like. The birdwings on the helmet make this a truly unique design. Methinks the helmet might look better with a white facemask (or, in this case, maybe even a gray facemask since the helmet itself is so dark) but it's the wings that win this one for me. No complaints. 4

REDSKINS: Something about the fact that the tribesman in the logo is a different color than the actual helmet color has always bugged me, and I have no idea why. BUT...having feathers stuck to the side of the circle in which the tribesman is depicted was a minor stroke of genius...adds something of a "dreamcatcher" effect to the logo. In the overall sense, I like the striping arrangement, the yellow(gold) facemask...and the colors look good together. 3.5

SOUTH

FALCONS: It's cool how the bird resembles the letter "F", for "falcon". Outside of that...though the element of speed is present in the bird logo, it's not entirely moving, at least not to me. It is solid, though, at best. 3

PANTHERS: Other than the cat vaguely resembling the shape of North Carolina (something probably 9 out of 10 people wouldn't even pick up on if it wasn't pointed out specifically), this helmet really doesn't do much for me. Maybe because it's a silver dome with a black cat with scant use of an actual color (in this case, the Ericcson cellphone blue)...and the "cat stripes" look just a tad bit weird to me. 2.5

SAINTS: This is one helmet I cannot argue against. The fleur-de-lis does its job, and it is readily identifiable. The extra black outline doesn' even bother me, and the interior gold outline isn't even noticeable from a distance (that's a good thing). All in all...I'd say that, given what a team called "Saints" would have to work with, this is about as close to perfection as you can get with a helmet design. 4

BUCCANEERS: This thing wins points for originality with colors. The pewter helmet has a "cannonball" thing to it, and that vermillion-colored flag literally jumps off that helmet. With the way it is rendered, it creates a very nice sense of forward motion even wit the helmet sitting still. HOWEVER...the point still remains that, while I like the logo, it IS still a bit too "cartoonish", and in the world of sports branding, "cartoonish" can also equal "dated" over a period of time. But that's about my only beef with this helmet, other than the black facemask...but really, what other color would one make it? Red would clash just a bit too much, in my opinion. 3.5

[Gothamite]

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but is there any reason why teams don't or can't use alternate helmets? I'd love to see Seattle roll out the silver one they proposed back in '01.

That has something to do with the NFL not allowing a team to use two different helmets for its team uniforms...unless that other helmet happens to be part of an "alternate" (see throwback) uni package.

You've got it right, but eliminate the qualifiers. The NFL does not allow alternate helmets. They do allow throwback-style whole uniforms, which may incorporate a different helmet if appropriate. That throwback uniform takes the place of an alternate jersey.

That's why the Seahawks abandoned their plans for home/road helmets - the league squashed it. Why did they? Because the NFL, unlike any other major sports league, markets the helmets as an alternate logo for every single team. Having more than one dilutes the brand.

I, for one, agree wholeheartedly with this. It's only a 16-game season: too many alternate jerseys, too many alternate pants killing the look of the league.

[Jimmy!]

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but is there any reason why teams don't or can't use alternate helmets? I'd love to see Seattle roll out the silver one they proposed back in '01.

That has something to do with the NFL not allowing a team to use two different helmets for its team uniforms...unless that other helmet happens to be part of an "alternate" (see throwback) uni package.

You've got it right, but eliminate the qualifiers. The NFL does not allow alternate helmets. They do allow throwback-style whole uniforms, which may incorporate a different helmet if appropriate. That throwback uniform takes the place of an alternate jersey.

That's why the Seahawks abandoned their plans for home/road helmets - the league squashed it. Why did they? Because the NFL, unlike any other major sports league, markets the helmets as an alternate logo for every single team. Having more than one dilutes the brand.

I, for one, agree wholeheartedly with this. It's only a 16-game season: too many alternate jerseys, too many alternate pants killing the look of the league.

ahh...like the case with the Chargers? Understood.

[spartacat_12]

Because I judged them how i saw them. The NFL does a really good job with logos. Bears and Vikings...not so much. My criteria was not to base any of the choices on sentimental tradition. In each case, Iasked myself, what would I do to replace the current logo on the helmet and in almost every case...the logo they now have fits the team name.

I might not love the Packers logo but what would you put there in its place? A map of Wisconsin...the word PACKERS?

So let me get this strait, you weren't ranking the helmets on whether or not they looked good, you were ranking them based on whether or not they were the best that the team could come up with based on their name and identity?

[random_ax]

You could put it with any other representation of the letters "G" or "GB".

Just because you can't think of another way to do it doesn't make it a good logo.

Again, my criteria was looking at the helmets as if all 16 of the NFC helmets were new and never been seen before. Tradition would not be used then. So, if the art department came to me with the Packer helmet and said "we came up with this" I'd give them an A. I like the G...... It's a kind of football shape...GB would have been too busy....wouldn't prefer it to PACKERS or a map of Wisconsin or a wedge of cheese .....it's an A....... now, if I was comparing it to the Seahawks or Buccaneer logo...no, I wouldn't rate it that high....but given the options for what you can do with the name Packers? It's okay. The reason my beloved Bears score so low is the C is not a logo the NFL would choose today if the Bears were a new team. And that is the criteria I used. The C (and you recall it's never been seen before 2008) is boring when you could choose either the Bear that adorns the merchandise or a bear claw or something else besice the wishbone C.

Then you've contradicted yourself. Some of the teams you grade, you reference the previous logo (Philly, Atlanta, Tampa Bay to name a few). I agree with some of the things you've said, but if you're truly grading brand new helmets, Tampa Bay for example, Bucco Bruce never existed.

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but is there any reason why teams don't or can't use alternate helmets? I'd love to see Seattle roll out the silver one they proposed back in '01.

"But the current logo is even better than Bruce by far and the pewter is great." Is what I said about the Bucs' helmets. Sure, I referenced the Bruce logo because yes, I know it existed even if the exercise was to grade the present helmets as if all 32 teams were new expansion teams...but I'm saying that if both Bruce and the current helmets were submitted, I'd vote for the current one.

That's what I'm judging each helmet on....maybe I wouldn't have chosen the name Saints or Cardinals or Browns for a new team in 2008 if none of them had existed before...but IF those were the names...then I like what those teams have as logos. Packers would most likley not be the Green Bay name if the team entered the league in 2008 but I can't change that for this exercise...so it's an A for the G logo. Having said that, Do ANY of you think that the Bears would choose a C if they entered into the league today????? Any of you?

[random_ax]

I find it really hard to reconcile this statement:

Again, my criteria was looking at the helmets as if all 16 of the NFC helmets were new and never been seen before. Tradition would not be used then. So, if the art department came to me with the Packer helmet and said "we came up with this" I'd give them an A.

with this one:

The reason my beloved Bears score so low is the C is not a logo the NFL would choose today if the Bears were a new team. And that is the criteria I used.

I can't believe that you could apply consistent criteria to the two logos and come up with such wildly divergent repsonses.

The C (and you recall it's never been seen before 2008) is boring when you could choose either the Bear that adorns the merchandise or a bear claw or something else besice the wishbone C.

Ah, but that's something else entirely. Now I get it - you're not looking at them in the context of if they were just being pitched by a designer, but in context with their already-existing logos. So most teams score high because they don't have other logos in their identity packages (historical or current) that better suit a helmet.

I'm looking at it like this.....I'm starting a new league called the NFL.....I have the rare honor of being the one to okay the design of each of the 32 entries to the league. None of them have had previous logos.....they are all new franchises.....we can't change the names so names like Packers and cardinals and Saints which might not have been the choice in 2008 where NFL teams tend to be named after more predatory birds than cardinals and the Indian and Acme Packing companies probably don't offer inspiration for naming the Green Bay team....so I look at the logos shown me...not so much for color schemes but does the logo represent the name...does it look...cool, for lack of a better word. To me, football logos are a tougher look than baseball or basketball. Chief Wahoo would never work in the NFL and only nasty predators (dolphins can kill sharks) and macho occupations are considered. Vikings, Redskins, Cowboys, Oilers, Steelers, Raiders, Buccaneers, Patriots........ you don't see Senators or Lakers or Brewers.

And the criteria prohibits anyone from saying "you can't mess with ______________'s helmet...it's tradition! Because in this exercise , the team didn't exist yet...the helmet hasn't even been made...YOU okay the design.

[random_ax]

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but is there any reason why teams don't or can't use alternate helmets? I'd love to see Seattle roll out the silver one they proposed back in '01.

That has something to do with the NFL not allowing a team to use two different helmets for its team uniforms...unless that other helmet happens to be part of an "alternate" (see throwback) uni package. I, for one, would have loved to see that silver 'Hawk dome come to fruition...initially. But looking at the colors the Sea Hawks employ, along with how they choose to pair their uniforms, I don't see where in the world the silver domes would have fit in. They'd almost certainly need silver pants to balance things out. Probably would have looked okay, but with that "Seahawk Blue" color they have (the one I call "Puget Slate") already looking close enough to a shade of gray, they'd end up looking something like silver/gray/silver. Just two cents that may not matter to anyone.

The thing I'd like to see NFL teams do is concoct a TRULY ALTERNATE uniform...something unlike anything else in their package. Sure, throwbacks are nice, to reinvoke nostalgia, but how about a whole 'nother look for those who like to see something truly unique and different?

BUT...that's a discussion for another time...in another thread.

And now...having said that, I'll throw my two cents into the mix. Criteria: stripped completely of any ties to tradition and/or history, based purely on aesthetic appeal; divided by conference; graded on a four-point grading system, against nothing but the helmets themselves. One additional note: uniqueness counts for a lot here, as in original design, as in unique colors/logos...that type of thing.

4-PERFECT (or damn-near close to it)

3-NICE

2-DECENT (but indifferent)

1-"BLAH"

So here we go...

NORTH

BEARS: There is absolutely nothing appealing to me about that wishbone "C" at all. Having it stuck to a navy helmet so dark it borders on black, and you have what's a pretty boring and uninteresting look. Don't hate it...it just does nothing for me. Doesn't help that another team in another league uses a similar-looking wishbone "C" as its logo, either. 1

LIONS: This is more or less due to the logo on the helmet than the helmet itself. It's a pretty good logo...it gets the job done. Plus, that Honolulu Blue bounced off the silver helmet creates a nice effect...nice color pairing. BUT...the useless addition of black costs this thing a point. 3

PACKERS: It's the logo again..but not to the degree of the wishbone "C". I actually don't have a complaint about the oval "G" logo itself, but the city's name is in two parts, so to me, I think a "B" should be paired with that "G". HOWEVER...the Pack is the only team in the NFL with a yellow shell, and uniqueness counts for a lot here. 3.5

VIKINGS: Only because folklore has had many of us believe for so long that Vikings wore horns on their helmets, the horns depicted on this helmet make this helmet unique and easily identifiable. The addition of the black details wasn't really needed, but that's neither here or there in the grander scheme of things here. (Plus, the helmet is a nice shade of purple.) Damn near perfect. 4

WEST

CARDINALS: Liking the bird logo. Stuck to the sides of their white helmets, it actually looks rather nice. Not remarkable...but nice. It's the gray facemask that costs the Redbirds percentage points here. It's the only deduction I can think of, other than the overall look looking a little too milquetoast for my tastes. 2.5

49ERS: The interlocking "SF" oval logo isn't exactly awe-inspiring, but, the colors do look nice together. Decent. 3

SEAHAWKS: The "wraparound" birdhead design is a very nice touch. I don't have a problem with the birdhead itself; it's more so with the colors. The helmet logo, though it's outlined in white, still blends in with the background (shell color), which is a deduction in my book. Other than that, though, if I saw all 16 helmets sitting on a table, this would probably be one of the first ones I'd pick up and take a closer look at. 3.5

RAMS: I'm going to separate my mind from the royal and yellow(gold) days of old for this one. The Ram horns, while damn near obvious, still create quite a unique, literally recognizeable effect for these helmets. There is no question as to what the team name is by looking at the helmets. HOWEVER...the horns still seem to be missing something...like an effect of some sort. SO... 3.5

EAST

COWBOYS: I'm going to be bluntly honest here...that star on that helmet does absolutely nothing for me. It's just a star. Wow...nothing unique or readily identifiable about it at all. No one would be able to tell what team the helmet was for if they never saw it before. That the silver helmet also has a gray facemask only further increases its "blah" factor. 1

GIANTS: At least in this instance, the "ny" has SOME character to it in the way that it is rendered. However, having said that, it's still too generic. The helmet is a nice shade of blue, and the red stripe does help a little, but not much. 1.5

EAGLES: THIS one I like. The birdwings on the helmet make this a truly unique design. Methinks the helmet might look better with a white facemask (or, in this case, maybe even a gray facemask since the helmet itself is so dark) but it's the wings that win this one for me. No complaints. 4

REDSKINS: Something about the fact that the tribesman in the logo is a different color than the actual helmet color has always bugged me, and I have no idea why. BUT...having feathers stuck to the side of the circle in which the tribesman is depicted was a minor stroke of genius...adds something of a "dreamcatcher" effect to the logo. In the overall sense, I like the striping arrangement, the yellow(gold) facemask...and the colors look good together. 3.5

SOUTH

FALCONS: It's cool how the bird resembles the letter "F", for "falcon". Outside of that...though the element of speed is present in the bird logo, it's not entirely moving, at least not to me. It is solid, though, at best. 3

PANTHERS: Other than the cat vaguely resembling the shape of North Carolina (something probably 9 out of 10 people wouldn't even pick up on if it wasn't pointed out specifically), this helmet really doesn't do much for me. Maybe because it's a silver dome with a black cat with scant use of an actual color (in this case, the Ericcson cellphone blue)...and the "cat stripes" look just a tad bit weird to me. 2.5

SAINTS: This is one helmet I cannot argue against. The fleur-de-lis does its job, and it is readily identifiable. The extra black outline doesn' even bother me, and the interior gold outline isn't even noticeable from a distance (that's a good thing). All in all...I'd say that, given what a team called "Saints" would have to work with, this is about as close to perfection as you can get with a helmet design. 4

BUCCANEERS: This thing wins points for originality with colors. The pewter helmet has a "cannonball" thing to it, and that vermillion-colored flag literally jumps off that helmet. With the way it is rendered, it creates a very nice sense of forward motion even wit the helmet sitting still. HOWEVER...the point still remains that, while I like the logo, it IS still a bit too "cartoonish", and in the world of sports branding, "cartoonish" can also equal "dated" over a period of time. But that's about my only beef with this helmet, other than the black facemask...but really, what other color would one make it? Red would clash just a bit too much, in my opinion. 3.5

I really enjoyed reading this. I don't agree with everything but that's not the point. You went with my criteria and judged without tradition...cool. I would also ask you to consider this...for instance...I'm not wild about the NY either...but before I graded it...I had to ask...what would YOU offer as an alternative considering the limitation of depicting a giant?

[random_ax]

Because I judged them how i saw them. The NFL does a really good job with logos. Bears and Vikings...not so much. My criteria was not to base any of the choices on sentimental tradition. In each case, Iasked myself, what would I do to replace the current logo on the helmet and in almost every case...the logo they now have fits the team name.

I might not love the Packers logo but what would you put there in its place? A map of Wisconsin...the word PACKERS?

So let me get this strait, you weren't ranking the helmets on whether or not they looked good, you were ranking them based on whether or not they were the best that the team could come up with based on their name and identity?

A little of both........ I once said on a thread here that I didn't like the name Saints for a pro football team....I really like the Sea Devils logo used by the now defunct Hamburg Sea Devils and said I would prefer New Orleans Sea Devils to New Orleans Saints. Now, I've changed my stance on that after reconsideration...imagine that, someone on the boards admitting they were wrong? Anyway, I still really like the name Sea Devils and the logo but I now see why the Saints name works for that city. So, yes, even if I hated the name Saints, I'm judging the logo on whether the designer who was struck with that as a name..did a good job. Actually, a name in the NFL that I detest is Texans but okay, that's the name ...and the stylized bull with the Texas flag embedded is...great. Would I rather have had the team named the Toros (same logo) or Scorpions or even Oilers? Yes, but they are the Texans....and so you judge it based on that.

[Billy B]

After reading your last posts, some of your choices still don't make sense. If a team called the Green Bay Packers entered the league today with a helmet with a G with an oval around it, it would be terrible. Does the Packers logo look cool? Not really it's just a G with an oval. Does it convey the name of the team? It doesn't really do that either. The team name is the Green Bay Packers, not just the Green Packers. Is it tough to come up with a logo for a team named the Packers? Of course it is, but you can't give them a pass because you think it's the best they can do (which I don't, a modernized version of Gothamite's avatar might be better.) If it is so hard to make a good logo maybe they should have picked a different name.

It is just hard to see how the Packers is so much better than the Bears, which as I Bears fan I don't think is good.

[DrBear]

I do believe that the stress on GREEN is how the locals say it. GREEN bay vs. green BAY as the rest of us say it

As a local, you're wrong.