Jump to content

NFL Re-Design Extravaganza!


bohob

Recommended Posts

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 385
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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

Actually, Ginger, you're right. I should have put the logo on both sides.

I get that a lot. :D

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Dude 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

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.

bears_uniforms.jpg

bears_altID.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

lions_home__away.jpg

lion_IDalt.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

vikings_uniforms.jpg

vikings_ID2.jpg

vikings_detail2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

XXFrXXX.png?1

140khld.jpg
7fwPZnE.png
8643298391_d47584a085_b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

lol

:D

Anyway, 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

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.

lol

:D

Anyway, 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.

Logo

I 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.

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.