NFL teams that need new unis.

[oldschoolvikings]

No.

YES!

Just posting this concept to show that this logo isn't all that bad.

Added black ruins it IMO. Plus, one jet is still flying backwards.

[OnWis97]

i've seen a lot of hate for side panels here. why is that? is it just the high contrast like with the Bengals that makes it hard to look at? personally i think its a fine element that breaks up a lot of space on the jersey. not too far from what a stripe does on the pants or helmet

The biggest reason they suck is that they don't work in practice as they do in theory. Jerseys are stretched super tight over the players, distorting the hell out of the side panel. The pants stripes are a fixed with the entire length, but the side panels which are supposed to match them will inevitably flair out and become almost twice as wide under the arms. Also, because the jerseys are so tight, they don't stay in place and aligned with the pants stripes. They would be off in almost every image. It works for basketball unis, but not for football.

Good:



Bad:

I am pretty much on board with Roman for why side panels stink. I don't necessarily dislike them, but they are sometimes executed badly. The Bengals and Vikings were the worst perpetrators.

Honestly, I think it would have been better if the above pants just had purple go to the top. Then the "transition" would be at the belt which is better than some arbitrary place on the pants. Had they done this, it would also have prevented the bigger problem: they almost always wore the above white pants when they wore the white jersey, so the arbitrary starting place for purple looked even sillier when they were on the road.

It works better in Denver because there is some continuity. So, while I don't mind side-panels, care must be taken to to execute them so poorly.

Anyway, here's what I'd like to see:

• Eagles: They are so over-done. Adding black, the silly number font, etc. Kelly green and silver works. It's a great combo. No black needed. I'd like to seem them start with the early 1980s, which had a perfect helmet and color scheme. It also had about 800 sleeve stripes. They'd need to address that and they'd be set.
• Bengals. I agree with people that say tone it down. My problem with the side panels is how busy the uniforms are (along with the pants transition issue). But to hell with it...even though I am not supposed to say this, just go back to the 1980s (pre tiger on the sleeve). They absolutely nailed it with that look. I prefer the thinner stripes on the sleeves to the thicker ones they use now. Anyway, they already had a unique uniform, which, by the way, was not gaudy as hell.

There are plenty of more things that should be done (like blue facemasks for the Colts), but these two are two that have really worn out their welcome for me.

[GotPixels]

Added black ruins it IMO. Plus, one jet is still flying backwards.

It's actually dark green not black.

The whole jet flying backwards thing makes little sense to me. Planes fly left to right and right to left in the sky, right?

[BrandMooreArt]

Added black ruins it IMO. Plus, one jet is still flying backwards.

It's actually dark green not black.

The whole jet flying backwards thing makes little sense to me. Planes fly left to right and right to left in the sky, right?

it's flying to the back of the helmet. which i dont mind either, its best to let the logo be the logo in this case, than do a flip of the jet.

[oldschoolvikings]

Added black ruins it IMO. Plus, one jet is still flying backwards.

It's actually dark green not black.

The whole jet flying backwards thing makes little sense to me. Planes fly left to right and right to left in the sky, right?

it's flying to the back of the helmet. which i dont mind either, its best to let the logo be the logo in this case, than do a flip of the jet.

Its just not normally what you see. Most helmet logos are flipped so the design's major aspect (animal's face, arrow head, etc.) faces forward. As you say, arguably the plane can fly either direction, but you could also say that, this way, its in full retreat.

[Jungle Jim]

Since the pants stripes fade from orange-black to white-black as they move up, I always assumed that the Bengals white side panels were meant to simulate the white belly of a tiger. The attempt fails, though, because the white on a tiger is a gradual transition, not a straight-line, abrupt, black-to-white or orange-to-white change.

[orangefaniniowa]

As far as the Eagles are concerned, I don't mind the midnight green color. IMO I think it is better than the kelly green although traditionalists will disagree with me. But I do think the black needs to go, and regain the silver/gray as their secondary color, they should use that as the pants color for home and away games. If done the right way, the midnight green/silver combo would work.

And for the Bengals, I would like to see them go back to the 1981-96 jerseys, I think having the bengal stripe on their jersey shoulders is great, and it is one of my favorite classic jersey combo. They need to scrap black pants as well, and just have the white pants for home and away games. If they do need colored pants, make them orange pants and use them only for away games. I just don't see the black/orange combo work that well at home.

[chuckymack]

Since the pants stripes fade from orange-black to white-black as they move up, I always assumed that the Bengals white side panels were meant to simulate the white belly of a tiger. The attempt fails, though, because the white on a tiger is a gradual transition, not a straight-line, abrupt, black-to-white or orange-to-white change.

I'd be SHOCKED if that wasn't the inspiration. I agree that the execution is lacking. Simply removing the white side panels would make a world of difference. So would dropping that insipid 'B' logo, too.

[Chromatic]

Since the pants stripes fade from orange-black to white-black as they move up, I always assumed that the Bengals white side panels were meant to simulate the white belly of a tiger. The attempt fails, though, because the white on a tiger is a gradual transition, not a straight-line, abrupt, black-to-white or orange-to-white change.

I think the best way to do that would be to make white the go-to pant color with the home/alts. The side panel just looks bad.

I'd be SHOCKED if that wasn't the inspiration. I agree that the execution is lacking. Simply removing the white side panels would make a world of difference. So would dropping that insipid 'B' logo, too.

I don't get the hate for the B logo. Its not amazing, but I don't think its that bad either.

[andycumbee19]

Since the pants stripes fade from orange-black to white-black as they move up, I always assumed that the Bengals white side panels were meant to simulate the white belly of a tiger. The attempt fails, though, because the white on a tiger is a gradual transition, not a straight-line, abrupt, black-to-white or orange-to-white change.

I think the best way to do that would be to make white the go-to pant color with the home/alts. The side panel just looks bad.

I'd be SHOCKED if that wasn't the inspiration. I agree that the execution is lacking. Simply removing the white side panels would make a world of difference. So would dropping that insipid 'B' logo, too.

I don't get the hate for the B logo. Its not amazing, but I don't think its that bad either.

Me either. It's certainly not a bad logo. Sure a 5th grader could have done it, but it's simple, clean, and easily recognizable. Seriously, there's No mistaking what team the logo represents.

That being said, it should have been a C, but I'm guessing the stripes wouldn't even show or read as stripes

[IceCap]

That's the problem I have with it. It should have been a C, but the fact that it wouldn't have worked with a C means the concept should have been scrapped.

Plus it supplanted a far superior tiger head logo.

[oldschoolvikings]

Since the pants stripes fade from orange-black to white-black as they move up, I always assumed that the Bengals white side panels were meant to simulate the white belly of a tiger. The attempt fails, though, because the white on a tiger is a gradual transition, not a straight-line, abrupt, black-to-white or orange-to-white change.

I think the best way to do that would be to make white the go-to pant color with the home/alts. The side panel just looks bad.

I'd be SHOCKED if that wasn't the inspiration. I agree that the execution is lacking. Simply removing the white side panels would make a world of difference. So would dropping that insipid 'B' logo, too.

I don't get the hate for the B logo. Its not amazing, but I don't think its that bad either.

My main issue with the B logo is that it more or less replaced two great logos (leaping tiger and tiger head) which were already established and IMO superior.

*edit - Damn, Cap... you beat me by, literally, seconds.

[BrandMooreArt]

That's the problem I have with it. It should have been a C, but the fact that it wouldn't have worked with a C means the concept should have been scrapped.

Plus it supplanted a far superior tiger head logo.

i've heard this before from a few. it's another thing i don't get. there's already an orange C in the league, i think the B was the way to go. unique is good. i think the concept could work as a C too, i dont see the stripes not fitting into that font.

i get that there's this rule some people have where a letter mark should represent the city, not the team name, but truth is that's only 1 way to do things. if there's any 1 rule to follow in brand identity it's "be different". and in the pro sports world the team name has more value than the city. ask someone who their favorite college football team is and they'll probably say "Miami". ask who their favorite pro team is and its probably "the Dolphins". the end result of the B mark is perfectly acceptable, appropriate, memorable, unique, and well executed

[TheOldRoman]

That's the problem I have with it. It should have been a C, but the fact that it wouldn't have worked with a C means the concept should have been scrapped.

Plus it supplanted a far superior tiger head logo.

i've heard this before from a few. it's another thing i don't get. there's already an orange C in the league, i think the B was the way to go. unique is good. i think the concept could work as a C too, i dont see the stripes not fitting into that font.

i get that there's this rule some people have where a letter mark should represent the city, not the team name, but truth is that's only 1 way to do things. if there's any 1 rule to follow in brand identity it's "be different". and in the pro sports world the team name has more value than the city. ask someone who their favorite college football team is and they'll probably say "Miami". ask who their favorite pro team is and its probably "the Dolphins". the end result of the B mark is perfectly acceptable, appropriate, memorable, unique, and well executed

Traditionally, monograms for sports teams represent the city. It makes too much sense not to, but maybe that clouds my vision. Still, it's really dumb and overkill to have a striped B. B is for Bengals. Stripes are for Bengals. A striped C would be a clever way to allude to the city and the team name. To me, the striped B is saying HAI GUYS OUR NAME IS BENGALS AND HERE IS A B FOR BENGALS CUZ IT STARTS WITH B AND THERE ARE STRIPES TOO CUZ TIGERS HAVE STRIPES.

[OnWis97]

Since the pants stripes fade from orange-black to white-black as they move up, I always assumed that the Bengals white side panels were meant to simulate the white belly of a tiger. The attempt fails, though, because the white on a tiger is a gradual transition, not a straight-line, abrupt, black-to-white or orange-to-white change.

I think the best way to do that would be to make white the go-to pant color with the home/alts. The side panel just looks bad.

I'd be SHOCKED if that wasn't the inspiration. I agree that the execution is lacking. Simply removing the white side panels would make a world of difference. So would dropping that insipid 'B' logo, too.

I think the best way to go would be to not try to actually look like tigers. The tiger trim they introduced some 30 years ago was perfect. White side panels (on the side to replicate the bottom), assuming that is the inspiration is taking it literally.

[BrandMooreArt]

That's the problem I have with it. It should have been a C, but the fact that it wouldn't have worked with a C means the concept should have been scrapped.

Plus it supplanted a far superior tiger head logo.

i've heard this before from a few. it's another thing i don't get. there's already an orange C in the league, i think the B was the way to go. unique is good. i think the concept could work as a C too, i dont see the stripes not fitting into that font.

i get that there's this rule some people have where a letter mark should represent the city, not the team name, but truth is that's only 1 way to do things. if there's any 1 rule to follow in brand identity it's "be different". and in the pro sports world the team name has more value than the city. ask someone who their favorite college football team is and they'll probably say "Miami". ask who their favorite pro team is and its probably "the Dolphins". the end result of the B mark is perfectly acceptable, appropriate, memorable, unique, and well executed

Traditionally, monograms for sports teams represent the city. It makes too much sense not to, but maybe that clouds my vision. Still, it's really dumb and overkill to have a striped B. B is for Bengals. Stripes are for Bengals. A striped C would be a clever way to allude to the city and the team name. To me, the striped B is saying HAI GUYS OUR NAME IS BENGALS AND HERE IS A B FOR BENGALS CUZ IT STARTS WITH B AND THERE ARE STRIPES TOO CUZ TIGERS HAVE STRIPES.

i see that, but i just don't think it's a big deal. the city and team is one entity, as long as the mark represents it in some way i think its a success, and not redundant. and the most important thing here is having something unique. the concept of an orange B is that. i dont think you and i will ever agree on anything, LOL

[tBBP]

I was also (and in a way, still kinda am) in the camp that believed the Bengals' monogram logo should've been a "C" (even included my version of one in a previous concept)—until it was explained to me that the "B" was chosen as an homage to the team's founder, Paul Brown...after whom the Bengals' stadium is named. Then it made more sense to me.

As for their present vs. previous uniforms, this quip from McCarthy (back in '06!) pretty much says it all:

I think I've finally put my finger on what I hate about the new uniforms

These uniforms are saying "we're a football team who is named after tigers"

These uniforms are saying "we're tigers who play football"

Meaning that the new uniforms are tiger costumes, while the old ones were football uniforms.

[seahawk9]

Jaguars and Seahawks.

[generalshepherd141]

Cardinals

Ravens

Panthers

Cowboys

Texans

Jaguars

Dolphins

Patriots

49ers

Seahawks

Buccaneers

Titans

[shaydre1019]

Since the pants stripes fade from orange-black to white-black as they move up, I always assumed that the Bengals white side panels were meant to simulate the white belly of a tiger. The attempt fails, though, because the white on a tiger is a gradual transition, not a straight-line, abrupt, black-to-white or orange-to-white change.

I think the best way to do that would be to make white the go-to pant color with the home/alts. The side panel just looks bad.

I'd be SHOCKED if that wasn't the inspiration. I agree that the execution is lacking. Simply removing the white side panels would make a world of difference. So would dropping that insipid 'B' logo, too.

I don't get the hate for the B logo. Its not amazing, but I don't think its that bad either.

I think the B is a solid logo. I hate that they use it on tw chest though, and when they use it as the midfield logo the white stroke is way too thin, it looks like idk, it just looks really bad and bothers me whenever I see bengals home highlights.