Jump to content

Nfl.com


vicfurth

Recommended Posts

I know this was in another thread, but NFL.com is now using the Bengals' tiger-striped B instead of the bengal head (or full-body bengal, I don't remember).

team6.gif

Just an observation. I think this is a bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this the type of situation that the Browns' "football B" logo was made for? I thought they were doing away with the plain orange helmet or orange rectangle when situations call for a team logo. Even on ESPN, they always use the helmet or orange rectangle instead of the new logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well like the old saying goes, "The clothes make the man" so in this case "The unis make the players" and I hope their play doesn't reflect these "possible" new unis or else we will see the Bengals play worse then they ever have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

could this be a hint that the team is phasing out the leaping bengal, or the bengal head logos to put this on their jerseys.....i dont want them to, but it is out of our control

Actually guys, the Bengals are treating the unveiling of the new uni's/new logo like its the beginning of a new era in Bengals football. They are trying to seperate ties to the franchise's old losing ways that everybody remembers. The full body Bengal primary logo was introduced in 2000 (I believe), during the franchise's "dark ages." They felt the need to shake all the losing tradition in favor of a fresh, new (what they hope to be) winning era in Bengals history.

Thus, the Bengals busted out the new "B" primary logo cause they felt the need to bust out a new primary logo to coincide with there new jersey's. Its part of them creating a new identity for the franchise. That's the main purpose for this move.......

But make no mistake, the Bengal head and full body Bengal are going nowhere.

They will still be used by the team........but only as secondary logo's.

As far as I know, the "B" primary mark will be placed at the base of the neckline of the jersey's and the Bengal head will be on the arms of the jersey.

FYI........as for the allusion to the Bengal?s stripes being "2005ish" as mentioned several times by Bengal?s players .......

I know the Stripes will now stretch from around the arm down the side of the jersey and to the pants....like the often referred to suspender stripes that the Broncos and Rams sport on their jerseys.

I also know that white or possibly even silver piping will line the of the Bengal stripes as to separate them from the rest of the uniform.

The problem was, on the previous black jersey, the black stripes often blended in with the black jersey to easily, thus making the orange stripes look like slashes in the jersey instead of tiger stripes they were intended to be.

With piping lining the stripes it would better establish the stripes from the rest of the jersey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

team6.gif

Here's a question for you guys..........of all the logos on NFL.com's header, who has the best and worst logos up there?

My votes go to...........

Best........Houston hands down. The Texans Bull logo just looks so kick ass up there, especially the way the horns almost seem to form an ellipse. They have simply one of the best logo's in all of professional sports......to go along with one of the worst nicknames in the history of sports. What a combination........

Worst........AZ Cardinals just barely beats out new Bengals "B" logo.......for the time being. I just think the Cards need to update that logo.......and I will be expecting them to do so for the 2006 season when they move into there new stadium. After that, then the Bengals would have found something new to be the worst at.......NFL.com's header logo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best........Houston hands down. The Texans Bull logo just looks so kick ass up there, especially the way the horns almost seem to form an ellipse. They have simply one of the best logo's in all of professional sports......to go along with one of the worst nicknames in the history of sports. What a combination........

I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worst........AZ Cardinals just barely beats out new Bengals "B" logo.......for the time being. I just think the Cards need to update that logo.......and I will be expecting them to do so for the 2006 season when they move into there new stadium. After that, then the Bengals would have found something new to be the worst at.......NFL.com's header logo.

What? Arizona? Okay maybe the cardinal is not native to Arizona, but they have had the logo for years. No need to change it. It's still a nice logo. It's their uniforms that need changing. I'll take Baltimore as the worst of the bunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Houston one is good, even when so small, something most logo's can't do.

Simple ones work best (Bears, Pack, Saints) while some of the better complex logos just don't come out clear when they are so small.

The Chargers is bad. The bolt logo just doesn't work when it is by itself. It really is not even a very good drawing of a lightning bolt, too irregular. Looks great on a helmet and they use a different one on the shoulders & pants. On the logo page, it looks sad. I don't even consider the Brown's helmet to count (or it would be a close second) so I would say the flying thumbtack of Tennessee (I still can't believe that it is the best they could come up with.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Houston's logo rocks, but Arizona isn't the worst... its a toss-up between the Giants having the biggest yawn around, and the Falcons ruining one of the best.

BTW, welcome to the board, NYC. Nice avatar.

Hey thanks for the welcoming W.I.B......

On the worst category......you do have a point. I never liked the Giants retro look.

I feel the "Classic Giants" look could have done much better then this. I like having the "NY" back on the helmet.........but have never felt the grey pants. I know there trying to convey the retro theme with them but they look so out of place cause grey is not found anywhere in the Giants color scheme.

Plus, with the new "Classic" look, the Giants could have come up with much better primary logo then just plugging the "NY" logo as the primary logo. Leave that "NY" logo for the helmet, where it belongs.

To me, this was a lame attempt by the Giants to answer the success of the Jets retro look, which debuted to rave reviews the year before.

I also agree with you, to an extent, on the Falcons logo.

I like what they tried to do.......slant the Falcon to give it "motion."

Where I felt they went wrong is by trying to do to much with the Falcon logo.

They have white slashes in the Wing to convey the feathers look. Then they add Red slashes in between to give more "umph" to the bird's look. That?s all great. This is where they should have stopped........

But No......they had to go a step further and add a silly grey border around the bird, which makes the overall bird look smaller on the NFL.com header BTW. They didn?t need that grey border at all........did they need to give the bird an embossed look?

And to top that off, then there's the cheesy eyes and beak they gave the damn bird........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Giants currents look is, in my opinion, the second-best look in the NFL other than the Browns. The Pants, the red numbers on the jerseys, it's retro but modern.... they went with the metallic flake helmet, thickend up the "ny", and just made a nice, neat, beautiful uniform.

And the Falcons logo sucks. The original was classic, had such a great look, and didn't need to be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.