<https://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/121158-falcons-new-unis-2020/page/17/#comment-3074415>
<http://schema.org/text>
"This on a red helmet, maybe with a touch more weight, a little finessing of the linework in a few areas, and some experimentation with the eye, is all it needs to be.\n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tThere are far too many fussy details that don’t scale in the Jags’ and Bucs’ logos (individual hairs in the jaguar spots!?). Raw craftsmanship is less of an issue there, but I think they both took a step backward in terms of style. The old ones looked like logos, icons, simplified interpretations of what they’re supposed to represent. The new ones look like illustrations. They’re the emojis of sports logos with all the extra color tones and unnecessary shading. Both logos already had a blueprint for how to present themselves effectively without extra shading, and I think they went the wrong direction on both. The Jags logo could have been more than serviceable with some alterations to the perspective and composition, and I honestly think the Bucs should have just left well enough alone.\n \n\n\n\t \n \n\n\n\tThe curves in some of these are not drawn to a high standard, either, Carolina’s being the worst in that regard. The blue highlights around the right eye (viewer’s left), the clumsy transition in the highlight from head to ear just up and to the left of that eye, and the messy slivers of black sandwiched around the outer edge of the chin highlight are so ill-considered I can’t believe they’re part of a professional team’s logo, let alone one that came out just a few years ago. I wouldn’t even show something that clumsily drawn as a first draft. \n \n"
<https://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/121158-falcons-new-unis-2020/page/17/>