panthers_2012 Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 1 hour ago, djam2410 said: Titans may be introducing a new wordmark as seen on their preseason calendar. Can anyone confirm this? EDIT: NVM, seems the graphic designer who created this is suggesting it is only for branding purposes But that's better than their current mark, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sykotyk Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 20 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said: Well, what choice would they have? Because the NFL could understand that merchandising isn't just cut-n-paste. Some primary logos don't lend themselves to different situations. Some places, 'wordmark' logos won't look right and others won't look right. There's a place where a logo that is a helmet (SD, CIN, CLE, MIN, STL/LA, etc) is preferable, but there's others where using that logo looks horrific (such as the NFL Walmart jerseys that used the SD and CLE helmets rather than a logo such as just the lightning bolt or the < B > logo or dawg head logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_Star Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C-Squared Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 21 hours ago, panthers_2012 said: But that's better than their current mark, IMO. While this is admittedly a smidge busy and not the freshest wordmark in 2016, it has a lot more identity and character than that proposed wordmark. The latter feels fresh now, but I think it would have little going for it in a decade when typography trends push past the current trend of bulky headline fonts. Personally, I would love a wordmark that shuffles the deck equally between the two. My TeePublic Shop My Instagram Art Page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 On 4/9/2016 at 8:52 PM, oldschoolvikings said: Well, what choice would they have? The elf logo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschoolvikings Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 4 hours ago, Sykotyk said: Because the NFL could understand that merchandising isn't just cut-n-paste. Some primary logos don't lend themselves to different situations. Some places, 'wordmark' logos won't look right and others won't look right. There's a place where a logo that is a helmet (SD, CIN, CLE, MIN, STL/LA, etc) is preferable, but there's others where using that logo looks horrific (such as the NFL Walmart jerseys that used the SD and CLE helmets rather than a logo such as just the lightning bolt or the < B > logo or dawg head logo. 28 minutes ago, Around the Horn said: The elf logo? Yeah, I was kind of being sarcastic. My point being, apparently the Browns think the helmet is their only alternative. http://dstewartpaint.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sykotyk Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 1 hour ago, oldschoolvikings said: Yeah, I was kind of being sarcastic. My point being, apparently the Browns think the helmet is their only alternative. Actually, during the time in question, the browns has the helmet, the wordmark, the elf, the < B >, and the dawg head logo. And yet none were ever used. The Bengals figured it out, their helmet is iconic, but it doesn't look great for merchandise, so they went with the leaping Bengal and the Bengal head logo for merchandise. The fact the Browns didn't understand that in the latest redo notwithstanding, doesn't mean that back 5-10-15 years ago the NFL couldn't understand that if a particular piece of merchandise called for "Primary #1" logo, that it must be used for all teams. Instead of what will actually sell the most merchandise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynasty Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 Yeah, the elf logo is a horrible logo and I hope the Browns never use it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 Sorry, you misspelled "incredible" and "as much as possible." The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coast2CoastAM2006 Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 On 4/9/2016 at 7:52 PM, oldschoolvikings said: Well, what choice would they have? Spoilers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracy MidGrady Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 Not a fan of helmet logos at midield, rams could use the ram head, chargers the "SD" logo, colts the bucking colt logo, browns idc what they do tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshey Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Coast2CoastAM2006 said: I've always felt that it's a mistake that the Browns don't use this as a primary logo. Missed a great opportunity last season imo GO NETS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sykotyk Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 I really liked the dawg head logo. Butch Davis had a black leather jacket he wore on the sideline that only had the logo on the back with no wordmarks. Part of the dislike, probably, was that the ensuing years after the playoff appearance weren't that great until the 2007 10-6 season. Plus, they tried to create two new logos while not replacing the primary logo. And it comes down to tone-deafness. The team is told repeatedly, 'don't put a logo on the helmet' because 'that's us' doesn't mean fans won't buy merchandise with a different logo. The reintroduction of the Brownie was seen throughout the stadium. But, the team refused to really get behind it. Part of that is 'stepping on tradition' but part of that is not understanding what tradition meant. The helmet isn't even sacred. It's been tweaked and changed many times over the years. Different facemask designs. One bar. Two bar. The current design, etc. White. Gray. Now brown. It's one reason why fans were so disappointed with the rebranding/update this past year. The fans wanted 'new' and the team took that to mean "don't touch the helmet (though they did)" and the helmet as a logo, but butchered the uniforms. Which was about the exact opposite what fans wanted. Keep the uniforms, create a new merchandise/insignia primary, but leave it off the helmet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshey Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 I think the Dawg logo would look great with a thin white or gray outline on an actual BROWN helmet, since they are the Browns and not the Oranges lol GO NETS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panthers_2012 Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 16 hours ago, Sykotyk said: I really liked the dawg head logo. Butch Davis had a black leather jacket he wore on the sideline that only had the logo on the back with no wordmarks. Part of the dislike, probably, was that the ensuing years after the playoff appearance weren't that great until the 2007 10-6 season. Plus, they tried to create two new logos while not replacing the primary logo. And it comes down to tone-deafness. The team is told repeatedly, 'don't put a logo on the helmet' because 'that's us' doesn't mean fans won't buy merchandise with a different logo. The reintroduction of the Brownie was seen throughout the stadium. But, the team refused to really get behind it. Part of that is 'stepping on tradition' but part of that is not understanding what tradition meant. The helmet isn't even sacred. It's been tweaked and changed many times over the years. Different facemask designs. One bar. Two bar. The current design, etc. White. Gray. Now brown. It's one reason why fans were so disappointed with the rebranding/update this past year. The fans wanted 'new' and the team took that to mean "don't touch the helmet (though they did)" and the helmet as a logo, but butchered the uniforms. Which was about the exact opposite what fans wanted. Keep the uniforms, create a new merchandise/insignia primary, but leave it off the helmet. THANK YOU!! As I have stated before,I'm not a Browns fan,but I do live in Cleveland. I liked the dog logo and I totally wished that the Browns wouldn't touch the uniforms,but they did. The new uniforms are a way to make money for the Browns. I dislike their current uniforms and wish they did what you just said up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont care Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 They are named after their former coach, Paul Brown, not the color Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenTino Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 16 hours ago, Sykotyk said: I really liked the dawg head logo. Butch Davis had a black leather jacket he wore on the sideline that only had the logo on the back with no wordmarks. Part of the dislike, probably, was that the ensuing years after the playoff appearance weren't that great until the 2007 10-6 season. Plus, they tried to create two new logos while not replacing the primary logo. And it comes down to tone-deafness. The team is told repeatedly, 'don't put a logo on the helmet' because 'that's us' doesn't mean fans won't buy merchandise with a different logo. The reintroduction of the Brownie was seen throughout the stadium. But, the team refused to really get behind it. Part of that is 'stepping on tradition' but part of that is not understanding what tradition meant. The helmet isn't even sacred. It's been tweaked and changed many times over the years. Different facemask designs. One bar. Two bar. The current design, etc. White. Gray. Now brown. It's one reason why fans were so disappointed with the rebranding/update this past year. The fans wanted 'new' and the team took that to mean "don't touch the helmet (though they did)" and the helmet as a logo, but butchered the uniforms. Which was about the exact opposite what fans wanted. Keep the uniforms, create a new merchandise/insignia primary, but leave it off the helmet. As a Browns fan from Cleveland, this very accurately sums up all my frustrations with what the Browns did last year. The team president who oversaw this whole project is gone less than a year later, so here's hoping the new regime tries again as soon as possible. I'm not normally a fan of constant churn with a team's uniforms, but when you get it wrong to this degree, it's OK to try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshey Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 1 hour ago, dont care said: They are named after their former coach, Paul Brown, not the color I know who their named after, that wasn't what I meant before. If your name is the Browns, and you have brown in your scheme, why would you emphasize the orange the most? Just always grinded my gears GO NETS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk36 Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 I feel the same about the White Sox. Where are the white socks? Or were they named after their first owner, Robert White? Design Hovie Studios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Especially now, when so many players don't wear white sanitaries. The White Sox should absolutely be wearing white socks. It doesn't make any sense this way. That Browns criticism, on the other hand, has always seemed misplaced to me, since brown was always the most prominent color on both the home and road jerseys. Until the latest set, of course, reason #1,000,001 to hate it. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.