Lions uniform changes

[SFCOM1]

Wow. You guys are a tough crowd.

What do you expect from a group that's more pompous than Star Trek geeks?

I'm not too sure about that.

Have you seen the uproar on how the "new" Enterprise will look in the upcoming movie. Now that is anal rententive! (and I'm a real Trek geek too! )

of course being a Lions fan since I was a child (having been born in Detroit) I like the update to "Bubbles" though I would have changed out the black myself, possibly like others say a very dark grey or charcoal to complement the silver.

My personal favorite Lions uni was the Billy Sims era reflective silver numerals and striping. It looked great in the Silverdome, just not as good on TV.

[whchoclte]

I actually like teh wordmark alot better than teh logo. The logo seems forced to me adding teh 3d effects.

Wordmark is original and simple.

[oldschoolvikings]

I'm going to say I like it. I'm not sure about the numbers... I'll have to say I'll see what they actually look like on the actual jerseys. Usually I would leave it at that. HOWEVER, I love how everyone gets excited for a unveiling of a jersey/logo then when its an update of the teams look all we hear is whining about how it does not look as good as 10, 20 or even 30 years ago. PEOPLE it is 2009. Things change whether we like them or not. Uniforms are going to look cooler (or uglier depending on your judgment) as years go by. But guess what... We have no say in it. The teams have done this to change their identity and we can whine all we want but when whatever team takes the field or court next year they are going to be wearing whatever they please.

Okay I'm off my short soapbox. (Not that anyone cared what I just wrote.)

I might wanna say that this is just specifically my problem with the uniform (not the logo)... the Lions are kinda trying to have it both ways. New - fancy number font, logo update, pointless black trim, and Old - strong connection to the most previous uniform, insisting on sleeve stripes on jerseys without sleeves. I'm not saying its a bad uniform... I was just hoping for something more... um, maybe transending? Is that too high-falutin'?

[BBTV]

I'm going to say I like it. I'm not sure about the numbers... I'll have to say I'll see what they actually look like on the actual jerseys. Usually I would leave it at that. HOWEVER, I love how everyone gets excited for a unveiling of a jersey/logo then when its an update of the teams look all we hear is whining about how it does not look as good as 10, 20 or even 30 years ago. PEOPLE it is 2009. Things change whether we like them or not. Uniforms are going to look cooler (or uglier depending on your judgment) as years go by. But guess what... We have no say in it. The teams have done this to change their identity and we can whine all we want but when whatever team takes the field or court next year they are going to be wearing whatever they please.

Okay I'm off my short soapbox. (Not that anyone cared what I just wrote.)

I might wanna say that this is just specifically my problem with the uniform (not the logo)... the Lions are kinda trying to have it both ways. New - fancy number font, logo update, pointless black trim, and Old - strong connection to the most previous uniform, insisting on sleeve stripes on jerseys without sleeves. I'm not saying its a bad uniform... I was just hoping for something more... um, maybe transending? Is that too high-falutin'?

That's kind of the point I was making in one of my earlier posts. Contemporized logo, contemporary wordmark and number font, contemporary (sort of) use of black, but "traditional" sleeve stripes, trim, and pants. This is why it doesn't work for me. While it is true that I am in favor of contemporary (but classy and clean) looks, I'm not anti tradition either. I just think that you have to adopt the traditional aspects to the modern cuts of the uniforms, and either go with a traditional look or don't - don't try to mash different looks together to try and please everyone.

Look - I don't think it's terrible, or bad even. But I also don't think it's great, or good even. It just... is. It's forgettable, and will be changed up in 3 or 4 years. They really missed a perfect opportunity to make a statement with this change.

[ferrousoxide66]

YAY! For once, an NFL team modernizes their look and does it superbly.

[TFoA]

Wow. You guys are a tough crowd.

I think the people who say this FAILS need to count your blessings. The striping all matches perfectly, already vaulting it over Ohio State. The striping scheme on the blue jersey makes the gray pop. The logo is slightly updated but in a good way. The wordmark is modern but classy. It's not like they wanted to go with something drastic. Obviously. But all this talk of how bad this update is makes me raise my eyebrows at this forum that generally loves striping and hates piping. Do you really want the Lions looking like the Falcons? They give you a simple update that brings all the elements together into a design with much more continuity. And it is scoffed at. I think the hipocrisy is overwhelming. Take it for what it's worth, it's an update for a franchise trying to get back on it's feet. The Packers unis are generally well received. In these I see a lot of similarities. But it gets the overused "epic fail" moniker. What is wrong here? Okc Thunder is an epic fail. Not this. Sorry for the rant. I just think that people making a big deal out of a good update.

Overall I think Colorwerx was right.

THANK YOU!

Geeze, this place seems like it's gotten tougher to impress.

What exactly is wrong with the new Lions unis? Are they not different enough? If that's it, well excuse me, but I think you're not looking at things clearly enough.

The Lions didn't go into this update with the intention of pulling a Bills/Falcons/Vikings. They went into this update with the objective of updating their logo set and streamlining their uniform design. They've accomplished both.

The wordmark and logo are definite upgrades, and the striping patten is now consistent through the entire uniform.

They accomplished everything that they set out to do and the end result looks pretty good on top of all of that. So lighten up.

After spending a day to let it digest, here's my analysis:

1: They improved the striping

2: Not feeling the numbers too much. I don't think stylized numbers go well with a traditional uniform such as this.

3: GOT DAMN BLACK FACEMASK!

The uniforms gets a solid C from me. Not good, not bad. If it had a gray facemask, C+. Blue facemask, B-.

The logo, however, is all sorts of an awesome update.

[Gothamite]

That's my reaction as well.

Logo - outstanding update. Beautiful logo.

Uniforms - didn't lose the black, kept the increasingly-anachronistic sleeve stripes, added goofy numbers.

[elliott]

No, sir, I'll bash it on whatever merits I choose.

Here are my problems with the Detroit Lions update:

1. The logo looks soft.

2. The wordmark looks soft.

3. The uniform numbers look stupid.

4. It still has black.

5. It's not superior to the uniforms they used ten years ago, by any measure.

6. They're just going to change their look again in another ten years or less (as they've just proved with the adding-black debacle).

7. Their old logo, whatever its faults, was iconic. The new logo is akin to adding motion lines to the Yankees logo. It would be dumb and superfluous.

8. The whole update reeks of an update for update's sake, and again, is not an improvement on what they had last season, let alone what they had in Barry Sanders' heyday.

9. Boo on the Lions.

You know, everyone has there own opinion, but just for arguments sake...

1. How? It may not be the most fierce logo ever, but it isn't soft. Compared to the old one, it is ferocious . Seriously, it looks much less "static" and much more like a lion ready to strike.

2. I don't think so, it has sharp serifs and a bold, angled look. Not soft in my book.

3. I will sorta agree with you here, I am not a big fan of the number font, but let's keep in mind that it was somewhat of a grainy image, and the numbers may not look exactly like the Jags. And the other 8 numerals might look solid. Don't judge too quickly on this. And is it really "stupid" to try to match them to the wordmark rather than a generic font? That's what it looks like to me, even if it doesn't look great, at least there is a point.

4. So? What is so bad about black? It's a freaking accent color. It nicely complements the two lighter colors and makes the blue stand out more. All critics on these complain about black. But there is barely any of it.

5. Maybe not, but they are trying to move in a new direction. Not backwards. What would just going back to last decades unis accomplish? It would just look lazy. They made an attempt to update previous unis and to leave the old stuff behind.

6. You don't know that, but if so, you have something to look forward to, because in 10 years they will have another chance to fix this whole "debacle" of adding black. So enjoy hating a pretty good looking set for another 10 years.

7. Uh, iconic for losing. You don't add random white stripes to the Yankees stuff because they have so much tradition in winning and prowess and all that stuff. The Lions have none of that. All they have is a terrible reputation, and the weak looking lion of the past is a mark of that. I see nothing wrong with getting rid of a logo that signifies nothing but pain in losing.

8. Update for the sake of updating? No, that would be adding piping. All they did was simplify a busy striping pattern and give it continuity throughout the whole set. That, to me, gives it a purpose automatically.

9. Yay on the Lions for doing something right .

[MDC]

No, sir, I'll bash it on whatever merits I choose.

Here are my problems with the Detroit Lions update:

1. The logo looks soft.

2. The wordmark looks soft.

3. The uniform numbers look stupid.

4. It still has black.

5. It's not superior to the uniforms they used ten years ago, by any measure.

6. They're just going to change their look again in another ten years or less (as they've just proved with the adding-black debacle).

7. Their old logo, whatever its faults, was iconic. The new logo is akin to adding motion lines to the Yankees logo. It would be dumb and superfluous.

8. The whole update reeks of an update for update's sake, and again, is not an improvement on what they had last season, let alone what they had in Barry Sanders' heyday.

9. Boo on the Lions.

You know, everyone has there own opinion, but just for arguments sake...

1. How? It may not be the most fierce logo ever, but it isn't soft. Compared to the old one, it is ferocious . Seriously, it looks much less "static" and much more like a lion ready to strike.

2. I don't think so, it has sharp serifs and a bold, angled look. Not soft in my book.

3. I will sorta agree with you here, I am not a big fan of the number font, but let's keep in mind that it was somewhat of a grainy image, and the numbers may not look exactly like the Jags. And the other 8 numerals might look solid. Don't judge too quickly on this. And is it really "stupid" to try to match them to the wordmark rather than a generic font? That's what it looks like to me, even if it doesn't look great, at least there is a point.

4. So? What is so bad about black? It's a freaking accent color. It nicely complements the two lighter colors and makes the blue stand out more. All critics on these complain about black. But there is barely any of it.

5. Maybe not, but they are trying to move in a new direction. Not backwards. What would just going back to last decades unis accomplish? It would just look lazy. They made an attempt to update previous unis and to leave the old stuff behind.

6. You don't know that, but if so, you have something to look forward to, because in 10 years they will have another chance to fix this whole "debacle" of adding black. So enjoy hating a pretty good looking set for another 10 years.

7. Uh, iconic for losing. You don't add random white stripes to the Yankees stuff because they have so much tradition in winning and prowess and all that stuff. The Lions have none of that. All they have is a terrible reputation, and the weak looking lion of the past is a mark of that. I see nothing wrong with getting rid of a logo that signifies nothing but pain in losing.

8. Update for the sake of updating? No, that would be adding piping. All they did was simplify a busy striping pattern and give it continuity throughout the whole set. That, to me, gives it a purpose automatically.

9. Yay on the Lions for doing something right .

Yeah.

Thats pretty much exactly what i was thinking. the logo was synonymous with losing. After last season, it is pretty much the definition of losing. They had to change, to bring a new look, and I would say they did it well. I mean, they fixed up the logo in a similar manner as the cardinals, and they changed the uniforms without wrecking them in a similar manner to the cardinals.

[buzzcut]

[IceCap]

TROLL

No, sir, I'll bash it on whatever merits I choose.

Here are my problems with the Detroit Lions update:

1. The logo looks soft.

2. The wordmark looks soft.

3. The uniform numbers look stupid.

4. It still has black.

5. It's not superior to the uniforms they used ten years ago, by any measure.

6. They're just going to change their look again in another ten years or less (as they've just proved with the adding-black debacle).

7. Their old logo, whatever its faults, was iconic. The new logo is akin to adding motion lines to the Yankees logo. It would be dumb and superfluous.

8. The whole update reeks of an update for update's sake, and again, is not an improvement on what they had last season, let alone what they had in Barry Sanders' heyday.

9. Boo on the Lions.

You know, everyone has there own opinion, but just for arguments sake...

1. How? It may not be the most fierce logo ever, but it isn't soft. Compared to the old one, it is ferocious . Seriously, it looks much less "static" and much more like a lion ready to strike.

2. I don't think so, it has sharp serifs and a bold, angled look. Not soft in my book.

3. I will sorta agree with you here, I am not a big fan of the number font, but let's keep in mind that it was somewhat of a grainy image, and the numbers may not look exactly like the Jags. And the other 8 numerals might look solid. Don't judge too quickly on this. And is it really "stupid" to try to match them to the wordmark rather than a generic font? That's what it looks like to me, even if it doesn't look great, at least there is a point.

4. So? What is so bad about black? It's a freaking accent color. It nicely complements the two lighter colors and makes the blue stand out more. All critics on these complain about black. But there is barely any of it.

5. Maybe not, but they are trying to move in a new direction. Not backwards. What would just going back to last decades unis accomplish? It would just look lazy. They made an attempt to update previous unis and to leave the old stuff behind.

6. You don't know that, but if so, you have something to look forward to, because in 10 years they will have another chance to fix this whole "debacle" of adding black. So enjoy hating a pretty good looking set for another 10 years.

7. Uh, iconic for losing. You don't add random white stripes to the Yankees stuff because they have so much tradition in winning and prowess and all that stuff. The Lions have none of that. All they have is a terrible reputation, and the weak looking lion of the past is a mark of that. I see nothing wrong with getting rid of a logo that signifies nothing but pain in losing.

8. Update for the sake of updating? No, that would be adding piping. All they did was simplify a busy striping pattern and give it continuity throughout the whole set. That, to me, gives it a purpose automatically.

9. Yay on the Lions for doing something right .

Yeah.

Thats pretty much exactly what i was thinking. the logo was synonymous with losing. After last season, it is pretty much the definition of losing. They had to change, to bring a new look, and I would say they did it well. I mean, they fixed up the logo in a similar manner as the cardinals, and they changed the uniforms without wrecking them in a similar manner to the cardinals.

Yeah, these are my feelings as well. I'd even give the Lions an edge on the Cardinals. The Cardinals brilliantly updated their logo, and while I think they have the best of the nu skool uniforms, it could still stand to be simplified.

[Nemesis]

No, sir, I'll bash it on whatever merits I choose.

Here are my problems with the Detroit Lions update:

1. The logo looks soft.

2. The wordmark looks soft.

3. The uniform numbers look stupid.

4. It still has black.

5. It's not superior to the uniforms they used ten years ago, by any measure.

6. They're just going to change their look again in another ten years or less (as they've just proved with the adding-black debacle).

7. Their old logo, whatever its faults, was iconic. The new logo is akin to adding motion lines to the Yankees logo. It would be dumb and superfluous.

8. The whole update reeks of an update for update's sake, and again, is not an improvement on what they had last season, let alone what they had in Barry Sanders' heyday.

9. Boo on the Lions.

You know, everyone has there own opinion, but just for arguments sake...

1. How? It may not be the most fierce logo ever, but it isn't soft. Compared to the old one, it is ferocious . Seriously, it looks much less "static" and much more like a lion ready to strike.

2. I don't think so, it has sharp serifs and a bold, angled look. Not soft in my book.

3. I will sorta agree with you here, I am not a big fan of the number font, but let's keep in mind that it was somewhat of a grainy image, and the numbers may not look exactly like the Jags. And the other 8 numerals might look solid. Don't judge too quickly on this. And is it really "stupid" to try to match them to the wordmark rather than a generic font? That's what it looks like to me, even if it doesn't look great, at least there is a point.

4. So? What is so bad about black? It's a freaking accent color. It nicely complements the two lighter colors and makes the blue stand out more. All critics on these complain about black. But there is barely any of it.

5. Maybe not, but they are trying to move in a new direction. Not backwards. What would just going back to last decades unis accomplish? It would just look lazy. They made an attempt to update previous unis and to leave the old stuff behind.

6. You don't know that, but if so, you have something to look forward to, because in 10 years they will have another chance to fix this whole "debacle" of adding black. So enjoy hating a pretty good looking set for another 10 years.

7. Uh, iconic for losing. You don't add random white stripes to the Yankees stuff because they have so much tradition in winning and prowess and all that stuff. The Lions have none of that. All they have is a terrible reputation, and the weak looking lion of the past is a mark of that. I see nothing wrong with getting rid of a logo that signifies nothing but pain in losing.

8. Update for the sake of updating? No, that would be adding piping. All they did was simplify a busy striping pattern and give it continuity throughout the whole set. That, to me, gives it a purpose automatically.

9. Yay on the Lions for doing something right .

Coming from a life long Lions fan, I couldn't agree more.

[chestnutz]

elliot, agree on every point.

To be honest, I was disappointed in the new uniforms, just cause I'm a guy who loves to see new stuff, and these aren't really all that "new" just an update. That said, it does look much better than their old ones.

And people around here throw EPIC FAIL around like it's a saturday night whore. Seriously, every new thing a team comes out with is automatically EPICALLY HORRIBLE. It isn't.

[buzzcut]

elliot, agree on every point.

To be honest, I was disappointed in the new uniforms, just cause I'm a guy who loves to see new stuff, and these aren't really all that "new" just an update. That said, it does look much better than their old ones.

And people around here throw EPIC FAIL around like it's a saturday night whore. Seriously, every new thing a team comes out with is automatically EPICALLY HORRIBLE. It isn't.

I normally don't respond to new logos, but I had to on this one because every thing the Lions touch turns to terrible and the uniforms are no exception. Actually I like the new logo and wordmark, but the uniform should lose the stripes and the Jaguarish numerals. As for the black, meh I could care less. My problem isn't the new design, but rather with management's continued incompetence of putting the team last.

There, that's my last post in this thread.

[BB61]

OH NOES! IT'S WORSE THAN THE BUFFASLUG!!

Not really. But you'd think so.

It's fine. The numbers are a little weak, but it's not that bad.

Upgrade.

[Drew22]

Word. I like it, especially the consistent stripes.

[umlegend80]

Lifelong Lion's fan here. I was a bit disappointed by the lack of drasticity (I made that word up - sounds better than drasticness which also is probably not a word) in the changes to the uni. I was hoping for basically something in the style of the throwbacks with the logo on the helmet. However, as an update as opposed to a re-branding, it was a great job.

Remember, it is an update NOT a re-branding. I would have loved to see charcoal as opposed to black, though. As I said earlier, I have a hat with that color pallet and it is sweet. I will wait to see all the players in uniform to judge the numbers.

As far as the logo, it isn't the winged wheel, but it is a drastic improvement to the original Bubbles. The original Bubbles reminds me of the playful Lion in the You Tube video about the 2 Brits who raised a lion cub in London only to reunite a year after releasing him to the wild. The new Bubbles looks like a Lion you wouldn't want to play with or try to hug. Not perfect, but new logos rarely are.

[DallasSports]

The black is simply not needed. It's useless. If you think it makes it pop better, then whatever. Lions, for the longest time, never had black. Black accents does not make it look better, period. If there was no black on the uniforms, it would be absolutely perfect. It would be beautiful.

But no... they had to keep the mistake. I hope they'll eventually get rid of the black, but that will never happen because it's the Lions. A dark gray, however, that might actually be a nice idea.

I'm not going to lie. The uniforms ARE an upgrade. Does that make the uniforms great? No.

[-(dp)-]

Well, I find the lack of thought or logic in your posts disturbing

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

i'm convinced that no matter what teams release people are going to all over them. i remember when the bengals released their new uniforms and everyone shat all over them.

i think this is just complaining for the sake of complaining. i'm glad they didn't release some abortion of a uniform which is what i feared.