Jump to content

AFL 50 Logos...


Jaded Green

Recommended Posts

After looking at all the others, I don't think ours is that bad.

At first I did, but in comparisson to the rest, ours is one of the nicest IMO.

Most of the others touched on what they're old identity was. Which is cool, especially if that was the only identity you ever had.

I would have at least made the some of the white in ours an old burnt yellow. To give it that old effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the others touched on what they're old identity was. Which is cool, especially if that was the only identity you ever had.

I would have at least made the some of the white in ours an old burnt yellow. To give it that old effect.

I agree it could be allot nicer, but IMO it's really not that bad compared to most of the others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it could be allot nicer, but IMO it's really not that bad compared to most of the others.

Its very Jets to say the least. I think we have the best uni's in the league and the worst graphics to go along with them. I like the oval logo, but the crap they put on the walls around the field and just about every other area of design is awful. Its so tacky.

I would have given the logo more of a 60's look, maybe a thinner and less rounded font for the 50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its very Jets to say the least. I think we have the best uni's in the league and the worst graphics to go along with them. I like the oval logo, but the crap they put on the walls around the field and just about every other area of design is awful. Its so tacky.

I would have given the logo more of a 60's look, maybe a thinner and less rounded font for the 50.

I can agree with that! You have a good eye, should have designed it and sent it in! ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its very Jets to say the least. I think we have the best uni's in the league and the worst graphics to go along with them. I like the oval logo, but the crap they put on the walls around the field and just about every other area of design is awful. Its so tacky.

I would have given the logo more of a 60's look, maybe a thinner and less rounded font for the 50.

I 100% agree Jbro. Are you talking about the bold, italics green font that looks like crap? Because I think it's terrible and tacky also, and it's a shame because we do have great uniforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say Raiders then Jets, the rest pretty much suck, but If I had to put them in order it would go.

Broncos

Chargers

Pats

Titans

Bills

Chiefs

The AFL 50th Anniversary Patch they went with on all the throwbacks is pretty nice IMO too.

Yeah, I do like the AFL patches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you can rate each logo differently. You can judge it based off how clear the logo explains it is to the innocent observer/non football fan. A logo like Tennessee's explain's the best that they were an original AFL team. Followed next by the Patriots then the Jets and Broncos.

You can also judge it by the appearance. Personally, I love the Chargers, Bills and Raiders logos. They really jump out and make an impression. Of course its comical in the past decade that the Raiders have "committment to excellence" considering they've been a laughing stock franchise, but it looks great.

Finally you can judge it based off the absolute confusion factor. What the hell is up the KC's logo? An non football fan/innocent observer would have no clue first off what team that was, and figure it was a team somewhere in Texas, perhaps even a city in Texas. That one takes the cake considering it doesn't even say their team name (Full City or Name) in the logo and its outright ugly. The Bills and Chargers despite their appearance are awesome, would not be far behind KC for just lack of info for the non football fans who wouldn't know what/whose logo that is. But yeah, let alone KC now has a hurt, overpaid and overrated QB as their starter they have horrific AFL logos to boot for this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you can rate each logo differently. You can judge it based off how clear the logo explains it is to the innocent observer/non football fan. A logo like Tennessee's explain's the best that they were an original AFL team. Followed next by the Patriots then the Jets and Broncos.

You can also judge it by the appearance. Personally, I love the Chargers, Bills and Raiders logos. They really jump out and make an impression. Of course its comical in the past decade that the Raiders have "committment to excellence" considering they've been a laughing stock franchise, but it looks great.

Finally you can judge it based off the absolute confusion factor. What the hell is up the KC's logo? An non football fan/innocent observer would have no clue first off what team that was, and figure it was a team somewhere in Texas, perhaps even a city in Texas. That one takes the cake considering it doesn't even say their team name (Full City or Name) in the logo and its outright ugly. The Bills and Chargers despite their appearance are awesome, would not be far behind KC for just lack of info for the non football fans who wouldn't know what/whose logo that is. But yeah, let alone KC now has a hurt, overpaid and overrated QB as their starter they have horrific AFL logos to boot for this season.

Something tells me the league sent out guidelines to each team before they made their logos. The league probably wanted them to connect their past to their present, which is apparent in most of the logos. Since the Chiefs had that rain dancing indian that wasn't exactly 'PC' enough for our current nation of pussies they had to go with the Texas thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Patriots one has really grown on me. At first I didn't like it all that much but now I think it looks the best of the bunch. Any logo that doesn't have the team's old logo on it fails in my book. (See Broncos)

Well, the Jets use their old logo now. Is that still considered fail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean its harder to make the Jets one pop compared to the rest because we only have 2 colors and everyone elses uni has at least 3. That's why I think a light yellow would have worked and also connected the ny titans thing.

And made it look alot like the Packers. That would have been sweet. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the Jets use their old logo now. Is that still considered fail?

Not at all. I think the Broncos fail all the way around. I really liked the old Orange Crush look and they just pi$$ed all over it. The Patriots did the same thing but redeemed themselves with the current uniforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Patriots one has really grown on me. At first I didn't like it all that much but now I think it looks the best of the bunch. Any logo that doesn't have the team's old logo on it fails in my book. (See Broncos)
I like the old Patriot Pete so much better than that new sh*t they have now, but the 50 logo is too busy, they should have toned it down a bit.

As for the not having the old logo in it being a major fail, I agree.

I would have liked to see the old NY Titan guy it ours, he could have easily been incorporated and made to look great.

The Broncos one would have looked better with the orginal bucking bronco logo, the one before the one with the D. I think that would have made theirs the best.

The Chargers should have progressively used all of their bolt designs from oldest to new, in an over lapping pattern. That would have looked sick!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AFL 50th anniversary patch is really nice, but the jerseys look better without it IMO.

Its hard to put a patch on a football Jersey. No sleeve space with 90% of the players going with no sleeves. How anyone can wear sleeves still is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...