bohob Posted February 26, 2008 Author Share Posted February 26, 2008 Because the Steelers have a winning brand and the Browns have a losing brand. Normally, I would agree on the Steelers, but they are a storied franchise. The Browns, however, haven't won s*** since the Super Bowl era.How can you justify that? The Steelers are a storied franchise because of what? Decades of futility followed by a dominant 1970s, a mediocre 1980s and successful campaigns in the mid 1990s and 2000s? The Browns' dominance in the 1940s and 1950s along with their successful 1960s and 1980s seasons don't count? They're not a storied franchise because they haven't won a recent championship? You're right, the Bears, Raiders, Lions, Dolphins; they're not very storied, either. Read a book. Your statement is akin to saying the Bulls have a winning brand and the Celtics have a losing brand because Chicago has won more championships in the last 20 years, though the Celtics are arguably the most dominant franchise in the history of professional basketball.Actually, the Browns aren't like the Celtics at all, they're like the Cubs (a team known for being loveable losers). But I clearly stated since the Super Bowl era. And yes, count the rings. So if there are any Browns fans out there that I have offended, I wasn't trying to bad mouth your team. But I think with the young players Cleveland has now, they need to forge their own identity. Seriously, I think it has helped Tampa Bay (not as much as Tony Dungy, but a little). NHL 2016 by Bowen Hobbs * BOHOB's MLB Redesign Project * MiLB Re-Brands * NCAA Football Concepts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick the brick Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 RAVENS:I HATE THERE CURRENT LOGO, If you use the secondary logo as there primary logo, it would look sweet. nick Wall"Find the flame, light the fire"BEAT ASHEVILLE SCHOOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbreadmann Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Because the Steelers have a winning brand and the Browns have a losing brand. Normally, I would agree on the Steelers, but they are a storied franchise. The Browns, however, haven't won s*** since the Super Bowl era.How can you justify that? The Steelers are a storied franchise because of what? Decades of futility followed by a dominant 1970s, a mediocre 1980s and successful campaigns in the mid 1990s and 2000s? The Browns' dominance in the 1940s and 1950s along with their successful 1960s and 1980s seasons don't count? They're not a storied franchise because they haven't won a recent championship? You're right, the Bears, Raiders, Lions, Dolphins; they're not very storied, either. Read a book. Your statement is akin to saying the Bulls have a winning brand and the Celtics have a losing brand because Chicago has won more championships in the last 20 years, though the Celtics are arguably the most dominant franchise in the history of professional basketball.Actually, the Browns aren't like the Celtics at all, they're like the Cubs (a team known for being loveable losers). But I clearly stated since the Super Bowl era. And yes, count the rings. So if there are any Browns fans out there that I have offended, I wasn't trying to bad mouth your team. But I think with the young players Cleveland has now, they need to forge their own identity. Seriously, I think it has helped Tampa Bay (not as much as Tony Dungy, but a little).So? That doesn't mean that you can/can't change things, even if they haven't won since the SB era. (BTW, the Cubs haven't won since 1909, so no comparison there). As you stated earlier, this is a re-design project. So you need to re-design all of the teams. Storied or not, you can't keep a look based on performance while saying that. You should put the Pittsburgh logo on both sides for that reason, not because they've won 4 or 5 SBs. Putting a logo on the Browns helmet was creative like you want, but leaving the Steelers like that shows no creativity. Both helmets have equal tradition and history for not having two logos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bohob Posted February 27, 2008 Author Share Posted February 27, 2008 Actually, Ginger, you're right. I should have put the logo on both sides. NHL 2016 by Bowen Hobbs * BOHOB's MLB Redesign Project * MiLB Re-Brands * NCAA Football Concepts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbreadmann Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Actually, Ginger, you're right. I should have put the logo on both sides.I get that a lot. Glad you see it that way. I hope I didn't come off as harsh or rude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bohob Posted February 27, 2008 Author Share Posted February 27, 2008 Actually, Ginger, you're right. I should have put the logo on both sides.I get that a lot. Glad you see it that way. I hope I didn't come off as harsh or rude.Trust me, it wasn't nearly as harsh as the lecture I got on Browns history.Also, I should have the NFC North done by the end of the week, if not sooner. (Depends on how long the Lions take.) NHL 2016 by Bowen Hobbs * BOHOB's MLB Redesign Project * MiLB Re-Brands * NCAA Football Concepts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigga Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Because the Steelers have a winning brand and the Browns have a losing brand. Normally, I would agree on the Steelers, but they are a storied franchise. The Browns, however, haven't won s*** since the Super Bowl era.How can you justify that? The Steelers are a storied franchise because of what? Decades of futility followed by a dominant 1970s, a mediocre 1980s and successful campaigns in the mid 1990s and 2000s? The Browns' dominance in the 1940s and 1950s along with their successful 1960s and 1980s seasons don't count? They're not a storied franchise because they haven't won a recent championship? You're right, the Bears, Raiders, Lions, Dolphins; they're not very storied, either. Read a book. Your statement is akin to saying the Bulls have a winning brand and the Celtics have a losing brand because Chicago has won more championships in the last 20 years, though the Celtics are arguably the most dominant franchise in the history of professional basketball.I read that as the Steelers were a steroid franchise instead of storied. An easy mistake to make in light of what we now know about them, huh? On January 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM, NJTank said: Btw this is old hat for Notre Dame. Knits Rockne made up George Tip's death bed speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ars427x Posted February 27, 2008 Share Posted February 27, 2008 Because the Steelers have a winning brand and the Browns have a losing brand. Normally, I would agree on the Steelers, but they are a storied franchise. The Browns, however, haven't won s*** since the Super Bowl era.How can you justify that? The Steelers are a storied franchise because of what? Decades of futility followed by a dominant 1970s, a mediocre 1980s and successful campaigns in the mid 1990s and 2000s? The Browns' dominance in the 1940s and 1950s along with their successful 1960s and 1980s seasons don't count? They're not a storied franchise because they haven't won a recent championship? You're right, the Bears, Raiders, Lions, Dolphins; they're not very storied, either. Read a book. Your statement is akin to saying the Bulls have a winning brand and the Celtics have a losing brand because Chicago has won more championships in the last 20 years, though the Celtics are arguably the most dominant franchise in the history of professional basketball.I read that as the Steelers were a steroid franchise instead of storied. An easy mistake to make in light of what we now know about them, huh?Post of the day! +100,000 to you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thull Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 Because the Steelers have a winning brand and the Browns have a losing brand. Normally, I would agree on the Steelers, but they are a storied franchise. The Browns, however, haven't won s*** since the Super Bowl era.How can you justify that? The Steelers are a storied franchise because of what? Decades of futility followed by a dominant 1970s, a mediocre 1980s and successful campaigns in the mid 1990s and 2000s? The Browns' dominance in the 1940s and 1950s along with their successful 1960s and 1980s seasons don't count? They're not a storied franchise because they haven't won a recent championship? You're right, the Bears, Raiders, Lions, Dolphins; they're not very storied, either. Read a book. Your statement is akin to saying the Bulls have a winning brand and the Celtics have a losing brand because Chicago has won more championships in the last 20 years, though the Celtics are arguably the most dominant franchise in the history of professional basketball.I read that as the Steelers were a steroid franchise instead of storied. An easy mistake to make in light of what we now know about them, huh?Post of the day! +100,000 to youDude EVERY team in the 70's and most of the 80's had guys who were on steroids (including 49ers and Steelers, the two dominate franchises in the era). Steelers get singled out because people always want to taint dynasties and legacies (see:Barry Lamar Bonds) and ignore the larger issue of drug use in sports.Off of soapbox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bohob Posted February 28, 2008 Author Share Posted February 28, 2008 OK, so I have the NFC North done, but flickr is messed up right now. I'll post them as soon as I can. NHL 2016 by Bowen Hobbs * BOHOB's MLB Redesign Project * MiLB Re-Brands * NCAA Football Concepts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbreadmann Posted February 28, 2008 Share Posted February 28, 2008 OK, so I have the NFC North done, but flickr is messed up right now. I'll post them as soon as I can.Use photobucket!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bohob Posted February 29, 2008 Author Share Posted February 29, 2008 OK! After learning that flickr wasn't working, I went to photobucket and also learned how to get the images on this page. So, no more links! Anywas\ys, without further adieu..........The NFC North!Let's start with the Bears. I unified all of the stripes and updated the wordmark. Nothing major. NHL 2016 by Bowen Hobbs * BOHOB's MLB Redesign Project * MiLB Re-Brands * NCAA Football Concepts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bohob Posted February 29, 2008 Author Share Posted February 29, 2008 Next, the Lions. I modified a Loyola Marymount logo and updated the colors to Honolulu Blue, Silver and Charcoal Grey. I'm still not quite sure about the wordmark. The uniforms are modern featuring the new logo on the helmet and a charcoal alternate. NHL 2016 by Bowen Hobbs * BOHOB's MLB Redesign Project * MiLB Re-Brands * NCAA Football Concepts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bohob Posted February 29, 2008 Author Share Posted February 29, 2008 On to the Packers. I unified the striping once again. I also updated the wordmark. Enjoy! NHL 2016 by Bowen Hobbs * BOHOB's MLB Redesign Project * MiLB Re-Brands * NCAA Football Concepts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bohob Posted February 29, 2008 Author Share Posted February 29, 2008 Last, we have the Vikings. I updated the logo and the color scheme. I darkened the purple and dropped the black. I also used the flesh tone on the Viking's face as a highlight and shading color. I edited the uniforms by dropping the side panel and re-doing some of the piping. Lastly, C&C as always. NHL 2016 by Bowen Hobbs * BOHOB's MLB Redesign Project * MiLB Re-Brands * NCAA Football Concepts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
29texan Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Great job on these. I like how you updated the Vikings logo and helmet. The organization SHOULD REALLY look at that.As for the othe three teams in the NFC North.... they should all stay the same. Really, this division overal should stay with the classic since it seems to fit, IMO. The Bears, Packers, and Lions should keep what they have.Anyway, good job with all of these. I couldn't have done better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bohob Posted February 29, 2008 Author Share Posted February 29, 2008 Oh, I'm not saying the Packers and Bears need a change. But as has been stated many times, this is a re-design project. I have to do something with every team. NHL 2016 by Bowen Hobbs * BOHOB's MLB Redesign Project * MiLB Re-Brands * NCAA Football Concepts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
29texan Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Oh, I'm not saying the Packers and Bears need a change. But as has been stated many times, this is a re-design project. I have to do something with every team.Yeah I know. Just sayin'.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbreadmann Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Oh, I'm not saying the Packers and Bears need a change. But as has been stated many times, this is a re-design project. I have to do something with every team.lolAnyway, the rundown:Bears- the shoulder stripes look bare: maybe Stroke the Stripes?(that would make a good band name). rest is pretty good--Solid but pretty plain IMO.Lions- Sorry, I don't really like the new logo too much(seems too cartoony and college-level) and I am not that fond of the Nike horns either, but I applaud your creativity.Packers-Sorry, but I just can't tell that you changed these.Vikings-Excuse my ineptitude, but I can't see how you changed the logo. However, I think this set looks the best out of all the ones in this division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bohob Posted March 1, 2008 Author Share Posted March 1, 2008 Oh, I'm not saying the Packers and Bears need a change. But as has been stated many times, this is a re-design project. I have to do something with every team.lolAnyway, the rundown:Bears- the shoulder stripes look bare: maybe Stroke the Stripes?(that would make a good band name). rest is pretty good--Solid but pretty plain IMO.Lions- Sorry, I don't really like the new logo too much(seems too cartoony and college-level) and I am not that fond of the Nike horns either, but I applaud your creativity.Packers-Sorry, but I just can't tell that you changed these.Vikings-Excuse my ineptitude, but I can't see how you changed the logo. However, I think this set looks the best out of all the ones in this division.Well, here is the current Vikings logo.LogoI pretty much took it from a hand drawing with cross-hatching, took out the black, and added some highlights and shading. It became more of a logo then. I think it's more dynamic now, because the purple in place of the black outline. I also took a tint of the gold as the flesh tone instead of the pinkish tone the viking had before. The new cream tone adds a color to develop highlights and shadows, as to show the roundness of the horns and his face.Also, about the Bears, I made the stripes thinner because of the shrinking sleeves of the NFL. With the Pack, I made it more of a skunk-stripe. Sorry if that didn't show through. NHL 2016 by Bowen Hobbs * BOHOB's MLB Redesign Project * MiLB Re-Brands * NCAA Football Concepts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.