NHL 2011-2012: Possible Uniform Changes

[IceCap]

I'm sorry, I just don't see how the old Sharks logo is better then the new Sharks logo. The new colours aren't an approvement, but the logo itself makes the previous version look downright amateur.

Several reasons. First the shark actually looks like a real shark rather than a goofy cartoon shark with orange eyes and oversized teeth. Second the stick looks like an old traditional hockey stick rather than an overly dramatized and "swoopy" orange cartoon stick. Third the triangle is an actual equilateral triangle rather than an embellished shape that isn't actually a triangle. To my eye the current logo is very unprofessional compared to the old one. It's the kind of logo I'd expect a minor league team to have, not an NHL side.

I think you're stretching when you say the first shark was "realistic" in any true sense of the word. Oh, and damn those Bruins and their stylized bear alternate logos!

Anyway back to the old Sharks logo.

The shark itself is poorly rendered. There's no shading, no additional lining, that suggests that the second fin is on the other side of the shark. It just looks like a freak second dorsal fin. Now we're all conditioned to see it as the second fin on the other side of the shark, but if you actually look at the artwork you'll see that there's nothing there to convey that. The new logo, however, uses shading to create a sense of depth, and it's now clear that the second fin is on the other side of the shark.

Now the stick. It's obvious that the artist (the same guy did both logos) isn't familiar with hockey sticks, but it's clear that this ignorance is very apparent with the original logo and less so with the new one. I'm surprised that you praise the stick in the original. Stylized artistic style aside, the newer logo has the more accurate hockey stick. With the old logo the hockey tape on the blade of the stick only goes up one side. This isn't how you tape the blade of a stick. You wrap the tape around the entire blade. The stick blade in the new logo gets this right. Both logos, however, get the end of the stick wrong. Yes, hockey sticks have nobs at the end of them, but the nobs aren't part of the stick, as they're depicted in both logos. Nobs are created by wrapping hockey tape around the end of the stick over and over again until one forms.

[NEW.ERA]

I know EA Sports has shown inaccuracies in the past, but I don't think they'd mess something like this up.

Ree-Box out, Reebok script in.

[Xodius]

I know EA Sports has shown inaccuracies in the past, but I don't think they'd mess something like this up.

Ree-Box out, Reebok script in.

It looks like the jerseys next year will have the words REEBOK on the back under the collar instead of the Reebok logo as seen here http://shop.nhl.com/product/index.jsp?productId=11806775&ab=CMS_EDM_B1_US:RoadJersey_063011 and here http://shop.nhl.com/product/index.jsp?productId=11810271&ab=CMS_LOS_B1_US:RoadJersey_063011 and here http://shop.nhl.com/product/index.jsp?productId=11810268&ab=CMS_FLO_B1_US:HomeJersey_063011

I'm pretty sure it's just the replicas getting the wordmarks, the game-issued and authentics will retain the logo.

I doubt it. Some CHL draft picks had the Reebok script on their jerseys. Also, Reebok has essentially eliminated all of the old vector logos off of their equipment (a la their helmets and gloves this year).

[Morgan33]

Ice Cap's analysis of the two Sharks logos is completely on point. Another reason why the newer one is better is because it actually features teal in it. Teal has been the Shark's main colour since the franchises inception yet the first logo only features a thin line around the Triangle. Speaking of the Triangle, it looks way better with that concave at the top. Adds some much needed motion.

Besides how anyone can think this

Is better than this is beyond me. Modern Classic.

[hockey week]

Ice Cap's analysis of the two Sharks logos is completely on point. Another reason why the newer one is better is because it actually features teal in it. Teal has been the Shark's main colour since the franchises inception yet the first logo only features a thin line around the Triangle. Speaking of the Triangle, it looks way better with that concave at the top. Adds some much needed motion.

Besides how anyone can think this

Is better than this is beyond me. Modern Classic.

add numbers to it. It quickly becomes too cluttered. For once, removing the shoulder yoke would be a good thing.

Also, that pattern looks like it would have transferred perfectly to the Edge template, and San Jose decides to go classic. San Jose is one of the modern-looking jerseys that I actually liked

[Morgan33]

add numbers to it. It quickly becomes too cluttered. For once, removing the shoulder yoke would be a good thing.

Also, that pattern looks like it would have transferred perfectly to the Edge template, and San Jose decides to go classic. San Jose is one of the modern-looking jerseys that I actually liked

If you're talking about the front numbers I agree with you. But thats really the only thing wrong with unis in my book. Easily some of the best initial Edge jerseys.

[WSU151]

Ice Cap's analysis of the two Sharks logos is completely on point. Another reason why the newer one is better is because it actually features teal in it. Teal has been the Shark's main colour since the franchises inception yet the first logo only features a thin line around the Triangle. Speaking of the Triangle, it looks way better with that concave at the top. Adds some much needed motion.

Besides how anyone can think this

Is better than this is beyond me. Modern Classic.

add numbers to it. It quickly becomes too cluttered. For once, removing the shoulder yoke would be a good thing.

I agree with this. The front numbers on any hockey jersey are lame. And the yoke shouldn't be there. If there was no yoke, it'd harken back to the 91-98(?) Sharks unis, which weren't bad.

[CreamSoda]

For me, the Sharks pre-edge jersey would look better with the new shark logo and the new Edge jersey would look better with the old shark logo.

The pre-edge sweater was a very modern design and looked weird with the old, classic looking shark on it. The new aggressive shark would fit better.

Same deal with the new sweater. The ultra modern shark doesnt fit on the classic stripped design. The older more contemporary shark would fit better on this sweater.

That looks so much better!!

[vmd9]

I can't believe how wrong some people are. The old sharks and lightning logos were complete . Honestly I think it's the whole "uh it's better because that's what I grew up watching" opinion, and some people's unwillingness to move on or accept change. These are the same people that still think Elvis and MJ are alive...

[knnhrvy16]

Ice Cap's analysis of the two Sharks logos is completely on point. Another reason why the newer one is better is because it actually features teal in it. Teal has been the Shark's main colour since the franchises inception yet the first logo only features a thin line around the Triangle. Speaking of the Triangle, it looks way better with that concave at the top. Adds some much needed motion.

Besides how anyone can think this

Is better than this is beyond me. Modern Classic.

All the most recent sweater needs is the elimination of the front numbers and silver replacing orange. Voila, boom, presto, done. The design of the sweater itself is nice - I've just never really liked that orange color with the teal and black, and front numbers have no business being on ANY sweater. It's just my humble opinion that the silver goes with it much better, and is more appealing. The removal of the front numbers would clean up some clutter.

And while they're at it, they could brighten the teal to be more in line with the originals. I don't think the logo needs to be changed (the Shark does look better updated - maybe change the eye color and the orange triangle outline to silver), but these aforementioned minor changes would do a world of good for San Jose.

True, it wouldn't stop Cujo from strangely and constantly obsessing with thier tendency to choke come playoff time, but at least they'd be well dressed

[raysox]

Woah! I agree with Morgo on something!

The old sharks' logo is another case of old logos, and people who are no fun with changes. The new logo is a sleek improvement, and the old jersey is outdated, especially with the colors. The fact their minor league team uses it still is ridiculous.

[CS85]

I don't mind the sharks new unis except the orange. Orange on the logo? Fine. Orange on the stripes of sweater? bad. Plus the black yoke sucks.

[BBTV]

I'm not sure how the shark is actually in front of the border of the triangle (upper left corner) in the new logo. It's really impossible. It's supposed to look like it's busting through the triangle to get you, but that messed up detail destroys that.

They are both terrible sports logos, but if I absolutely HAD to, I'd defer to the original, errors and all. I wish they'd just go in a different direction all together tho.

Also, IMO, the pre-edge jerseys with the shiny silver sleeves were their best ever.

[kw11333]

The Sharks do not need to have a shoulder patch, and numbers on the front. Imagine how busy Joe Thornton's jersey will look IF they ever make the Cup finals? His number, the "C" AND the Stanley Cup final's patch all located above the logo. At least the Sabre's could just put the patch on their shoulders like NYR did in '94.

[refuse]

I get what you're saying, but Tampa Bay's new sets are so good, and so much an upgrade from anything they've ever worn, that I can't agree with an "old teams wear classic styles, new teams break new ground" rule.

There is absolutely no way the current jerseys are an upgrade from their originals. I will agree the original logo left much to be desired but these new jerseys are even lazier. All they did was take the Detroit Template and add the Maple Leaf's colour scheme. They removed all the character from their identity. Update the logo but keep the basic look they won a cup with...

Those jerseys were my least favorite in the league when they had them. The logo was horrible and the uniforms were really bland. The new uniforms are such a huge upgrade over anything they've worn in terms of the logo and uniform design.

The logo had the potential to be a huge upgrade if they added a black shadow to the bolt and a silver inner circle. What I don't understand though is how you can say Tampa's original uniforms were bland and forgive the uninspired red wings-knockpoff striping of the currents.

Why would adding a shadow to a LIGHTNING BOLT make any kind of sense?

[Sport]

I was down at the Blue Jackets team store today looking at some of the new gear. They had Jeff Carter jersey T-shirts and above the name they had the reebok script instead of the logo. I gotta say, I really prefer the logo. It's more dynamic, but maybe this means that stupid gap on the back of St. Louis' jerseys will finally be corrected.

[SHaMROCK]

I'm sorry, I just don't see how the old Sharks logo is better then the new Sharks logo. The new colours aren't an approvement, but the logo itself makes the previous version look downright amateur.

Several reasons. First the shark actually looks like a real shark rather than a goofy cartoon shark with orange eyes and oversized teeth. Second the stick looks like an old traditional hockey stick rather than an overly dramatized and "swoopy" orange cartoon stick. Third the triangle is an actual equilateral triangle rather than an embellished shape that isn't actually a triangle. To my eye the current logo is very unprofessional compared to the old one. It's the kind of logo I'd expect a minor league team to have, not an NHL side.

I think you're stretching when you say the first shark was "realistic" in any true sense of the word. Oh, and damn those Bruins and their stylized bear alternate logos!

Anyway back to the old Sharks logo.

The shark itself is poorly rendered. There's no shading, no additional lining, that suggests that the second fin is on the other side of the shark. It just looks like a freak second dorsal fin. Now we're all conditioned to see it as the second fin on the other side of the shark, but if you actually look at the artwork you'll see that there's nothing there to convey that. The new logo, however, uses shading to create a sense of depth, and it's now clear that the second fin is on the other side of the shark.

Now the stick. It's obvious that the artist (the same guy did both logos) isn't familiar with hockey sticks, but it's clear that this ignorance is very apparent with the original logo and less so with the new one. I'm surprised that you praise the stick in the original. Stylized artistic style aside, the newer logo has the more accurate hockey stick. With the old logo the hockey tape on the blade of the stick only goes up one side. This isn't how you tape the blade of a stick. You wrap the tape around the entire blade. The stick blade in the new logo gets this right. Both logos, however, get the end of the stick wrong. Yes, hockey sticks have nobs at the end of them, but the nobs aren't part of the stick, as they're depicted in both logos. Nobs are created by wrapping hockey tape around the end of the stick over and over again until one forms.

So lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. Lets fix the logo not start again.

]

[IceCap]

See, that's not bad either.

[WSU151]

I was down at the Blue Jackets team store today looking at some of the new gear. They had Jeff Carter jersey T-shirts and above the name they had the reebok script instead of the logo. I gotta say, I really prefer the logo. It's more dynamic, but maybe this means that stupid gap on the back of St. Louis' jerseys will finally be corrected.

Probably not!

[IceCap]

The problem with the Reebok script logo is that now, as -Dan pointed out, it looks like there's an extra layer of "text" above the player names on the back. Why can't they just go back to putting the manufacturer logo along the hem, like in the 90s?