NHL 2011-2012: Possible Uniform Changes

[CanuckFanatic92]

Why can't they just go back to putting the manufacturer logo along the hem, like in the 90s?

The purpose of the advertising is defeated if the players tuck the back of their jerseys on the side the manufacturer logos are located if they put their logos on the hem. (The only time they had a foolproof system was with Gretzky, where they put tags on BOTH sides of his jerseys so they'd get brand exposure no matter how he tucked his jersey).

[Xodius]

(The only time they had a foolproof system was with Gretzky, where they put tags on BOTH sides of his jerseys so they'd get brand exposure no matter how he tucked his jersey).

Unfortunately it wouldn't work with Jagr.

[Morgan33]

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?

Cause then there'd be no use for the "Reebox" on Florida's jerseys

[HedleyLamarr]

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.

Is the team store in the arena open on Saturday during the offseason?

[bosrs1]

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.

]

Now THAT is a proper Sharks logo. Shame they didn't think of that before they went all Cartoon network on us.

[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.

Is the team store in the arena open on Saturday during the offseason?

Yes. I'm pretty sure it is.

[oddball]

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...

One day you will actually figure out that people can form their own opinions and they don't have to agree with you. I'm not sure what day that will be...

[Bayne]

The new Sharks logo is an improvement (not including the gold colour. I don't think that helps). However I think there are too many thin lines in the Sharks logo. If you compare it to all the other 28 NHL teams, it is the only one that looks sort of different in that respect. I would like to see the triangle kept to 2 colours, instead of a thin gold and teal line with a black border. Better yet I'd like to see the triangle gone all together. And ontop of that, the outline of the shark to be a slightly thicker black or something to make it appear to be a more bold logo like most of the other teams logos are.

[Gothamite]

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

It never made any sense at all. Looked stupid on the old logos, would look stupid on this one.

[Morgan33]

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

It never made any sense at all. Looked stupid on the old logos, would look stupid on this one.

It is a stylized representation of a Lightning Bolt not a realistic representation of one. Does a Lightning Bolt encased in a circle make any more sense?

[BBTV]

Why is the shark eating a stick? Shouldn't it be eating a King or a Canuck?

[charger77]

Why is the shark eating a stick? Shouldn't it be eating a King or a Canuck?

How great/weird would that be if teams could have logos like that (derogatory of other teams)?

[Lights Out]

I don't get the hate for the Sharks' orange color. It looks excellent with their current shade of teal. I hated the old teal-and-gray uniforms anyway, it was almost too "cold" of a color scheme for San Jose, if that makes sense.

The old logo was severely amateurish and looked terrible. While I can understand why people think the new one is cartoonish, it's distinctive from the rest of the league and is far more professional and well-executed than the old crap.

[Lee.]

IMO, although certainly unique and a breath of fresh air at the time, the original teal and silver washed each other out. The orange/pacfic gold/whatever it is provides excellent contrast to all of the other colors in the palette, which to me makes for a far more visually pleasant package.

Also, the first shark looked like a mutant submarine. That is all.

[alwaysr92]

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!!

I completely agree, it seems like when they redesigned the look, they reversed the modernization of the logo and the jersey.

i like the jersey layout sans numbers and I think the new logo is a huge improvement. I just cant stand the way the new logo looks on the new jersey; to me, it would be like the lightning revealing their new simplistic, classic layout and slapping their most modern logo on it, it just looks off to me. I think the stripes on the new jersey don't go well with the added motion of the triangle in the logo.

[charger77]

IMO, although certainly unique and a breath of fresh air at the time, the original teal and silver washed each other out. The orange/pacfic gold/whatever it is provides excellent contrast to all of the other colors in the palette, which to me makes for a far more visually pleasant package.

Also, the first shark looked like a mutant submarine. That is all.

Agreed. I would however like a hint of grey somewhere in the uniform.

[Gothamite]

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

It never made any sense at all. Looked stupid on the old logos, would look stupid on this one.

It is a stylized representation of a Lightning Bolt not a realistic representation of one. Does a Lightning Bolt encased in a circle make any more sense?

That works far better to my eye as a graphic element than trying to give the lightning bolt depth with a drop-shadow or 3D shading.

[raysox]

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

It never made any sense at all. Looked stupid on the old logos, would look stupid on this one.

It is a stylized representation of a Lightning Bolt not a realistic representation of one. Does a Lightning Bolt encased in a circle make any more sense?

That works far better to my eye as a graphic element than trying to give the lightning bolt depth with a drop-shadow or 3D shading.

It's really how you view it. At first I hated it because I love the current set. But once I realized why they changed it, I loved it. They wanted a simple dynamic, and hopefully iconic logo. Sure, people say it's a rip off of the Redwings' and Leafs. But you see, they have logos like that. Yzerman wanted to hopefully add the Lightning to that list, because that's what he knew in his like, 25 years of his career. It wont be soon, but if the logo is kept simple, than it works. Realizing this has changed the way I've even does concepts. Check out my sports' logos, notice anything?

But if it makes everyone feel better, they sell some stuff black/white. You could say BFBS, but I think it's to make people happy who hold on to the past.

All that said, I think it's the best logo the team has had. I'll be honest, when they adopted the new set, I wasn't a fan. But I realized how crappy this logo was.

[bosrs1]

I don't get the hate for the Sharks' orange color. It looks excellent with their current shade of teal. I hated the old teal-and-gray uniforms anyway, it was almost too "cold" of a color scheme for San Jose, if that makes sense.

The old logo was severely amateurish and looked terrible. While I can understand why people think the new one is cartoonish, it's distinctive from the rest of the league and is far more professional and well-executed than the old crap.

For me it's because I got used to seeing them for over 15 years with teal, black and silver/gray and that particular change was jarring. Orange just seems so out of place on their otherwise more muted oceanic color scheme.

[Gothamite]

I don't really like the orange either. Works as an accent in the logo, but teal, black and gray is a much more striking color set for the uniforms, especially if they use the original Pacific Teal for maximum contrast with the black.