jimsimo

Cleveland Browns Unveil New Uniforms

Recommended Posts

These jerseys were such a downgrade over the previous set. However I feel a couple small changes could make them decent. For me it would be eliminate the ridiculous shoulder stripe which reaches to the front, and the word "Browns" on the pants. Just extend the pants stripe all the way.

 

Next step after that, white numbers instead of orange on the brown jersey.

 

 

 

 

IMG_6417.PNG

IMG_6418.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 5:48 PM, joey joe joe jr. shabadoo said:

...even though they shouldn't have touched the uniforms to begin with.

 

 

 

Yes they should have touched the uniforms.  The Browns old uniforms were not good either.  Much like their team hasn't been any good for the better part of 40 years.  There are elements of the current uniforms that are vastly superior to what they used to sport.  They swung and missed with a few elements but overall, its a better set then the old, drab stuff they used to wear.  Brown and orange are a tough combo to make look good to begin with.  Which is why so few teams at any level of sports have ever worn them together. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SteamerStan said:

 

Yes they should have touched the uniforms.  The Browns old uniforms were not good either.  Much like their team hasn't been any good for the better part of 40 years.  There are elements of the current uniforms that are vastly superior to what they used to sport.  They swung and missed with a few elements but overall, its a better set then the old, drab stuff they used to wear.  Brown and orange are a tough combo to make look good to begin with.  Which is why so few teams at any level of sports have ever worn them together. 

Wut? 

 

The new Browns uniforms are an over-designed abomination. The contrast stitching is ridiculous, the pants are a joke, and the number colors on the home and road jerseys are amateur hour.

 

If/when the Browns change back to something more traditional, I hope they take the new orange and the brown facemasks and throw the rest of the current set in the dumpster. It was change for change's sake and poorly executed at that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Matito said:

I'm with you there. I don't know why so many people hate this logo, but to me, it's great.

 

The "B" is reason enough.  Change it to a "C" and it's perfect.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Red Wolf said:

So like this, but for the Browns? 

 

dolpgif16.gif

My eyes!

 

I still love that logo though.  Bring it back with the original colors.  Sorry for going off-topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

The "B" is reason enough.  Change it to a "C" and it's perfect.  

 

Two major teams in Cleveland already use a C for their main logos. The Browns don't need to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Old School Fool said:

 

Two major teams in Cleveland already use a C for their main logos. The Browns don't need to do it.

 

This wouldn't be a C by itself.  I don't think the city's initial should ever be off-limits for one of the city's teams, especially if that initial is incorporated into a larger logo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This concept I found on Google would work for me. Uses the shield from city flag. 

xQO3K7L_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&f

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CLEstones said:

Stop with the =B= logo.

 

Enough already.

 

Its objectively terrible.

 

*subjectively

 

The elf is too campy for a pro team and the entire dawg pound motif is antiquated. Some manifestation of the B-logo on, say, the color rush shells only would be an absolute home run. I personally prefer the B, but a C in its place isn't bad, either:

 

b35529117fba37cbb9219ba51aa0a188--clevel

Maybe even meet in the middle with some type of B/C hybrid:

 

c3b63749b78ea4d147dad4b6f20c909c--clevel

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

 

*subjectively

 

The elf is too campy for a pro team and the entire dawg pound motif is antiquated. Some manifestation of the B-logo on, say, the color rush shells only would be an absolute home run. I personally prefer the B, but a C in its place isn't bad, either:

 

 

No.  Its objectively terrible.

 

Its one of the worst logos in the modern era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

 

No.  Its objectively terrible.

 

Its one of the worst logos in the modern era.

 

Based on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, colortv said:

 

Based on?

 

Its generic.  It is not unique. It contains basic, generic shapes and letters.  It has no historical context.  It has no significant tie to the city or team.  Its boring.  It has no character.  It looks like a grade school logo.  Its just flat out a bad logo.  Again, this is like the new Phoenix Suns uniforms... for some reason, the Suns' new uniform and the =B= goes against everything people rally and cry about day in and day out, but they are widely loved.  Its mind boggling.

 

I'm pretty sure you can go on ClipArt '97 and find that exact =B= logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CLEstones said:

 

Its generic.  It is not unique. It contains basic, generic shapes and letters.  It has no historical context.  It has no significant tie to the city or team.  Its boring.  It has no character.  It looks like a grade school logo.  Its just flat out a bad logo.  

 

I think the simplicity of the B-Football (or a hypothetical C-Football) is part of what makes it work for the Browns.  The team's image, for the most part, is all about being simple and going back to the basics . . . right down to the iconic, untouchable blank helmet.

 

Let's go back to 1961 when the Packers logo was introduced, in which case the bolded and deleted text doesn't apply.  You just described the Packers G-Oval.  Would you feel the same way about that logo if it was stripped of its historical context?

I'm genuinely curious . . . not trying to attack you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, for those on here clamoring for a helmet logo.... the team studied this before the last uniform change and the fans were adamant. No logo on the helmet.

 

The PROBLEM was that the team heard "No logo on the helmet" to mean "No logo". As in for merchandise. That's the problem I and many others had with the Browns attempted changes. At least with the '00s Dawg head or the <=B=> logo, was that it looked decent on merchandise. And I loved the few attempts to bring back the Brownie though it was never used thoroughly. The team has been stuck trying to market the Dawg Pound (now the whole stadium is the 'Dawg Pound', but removed the 'good' Dawg Head logo and instead gave us this borderless 'cute' dawg logo that looks like it's the letterhead for the Kids Club newsletter.

 

MANY teams have logos that aren't on the helmets. VIkings have an entire logo yet only horns on the helmet. Bengals have a leaping tiger or head logo, and yet just has stripes on the helmet. Rams and Eagles as well.  And colleges all over have plain-sided helmets with identifiable and recognizable logos for merchandise that doesn't need slapped on the helmet. Ohio State's Block O is nowhere to be found on the side of the helmets. And no, the buckeye leaves aren't a logo, either.

 

As for the uniforms, they so badly wanted to update something that when they decided the logo was untouchable, they put all their unbridled effort into the uniforms and did every little sin known to sports. Words everywhere (Cleveland on the chest, Browns on the legs), colored stiching, drop shadow, texture finish on the stripe, extending stripes across different sections of fabric, etc.

 

It might have helped had they PUBLICLY shown the steps they were taking to redesign the uniform and fans could have weighed in long before we reached a finished product we can't change for five years. But, if the Rams can change the pants, we can certainly eliminate the Browns from the pant leg or AT LEAST overlay the stripe colors atop the BROWNS to at least let it blend in a bit more than the singe-color BROWNS we have now.

 

Also, the lack of the orange jersey in use considering it's the one DESIGNED for this set is strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CLEstones said:

 

No.  Its objectively terrible.

 

Its one of the worst logos in the modern era.

 

1 hour ago, CLEstones said:

 

Its generic.  It is not unique. It contains basic, generic shapes and letters.  It has no historical context.  It has no significant tie to the city or team.  Its boring.  It has no character.  It looks like a grade school logo.  Its just flat out a bad logo.  Again, this is like the new Phoenix Suns uniforms... for some reason, the Suns' new uniform and the =B= goes against everything people rally and cry about day in and day out, but they are widely loved.  Its mind boggling.

 

I'm pretty sure you can go on ClipArt '97 and find that exact =B= logo.

 

The palpable emotion fueling your opinion is the literal definition of subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

 

 

The palpable emotion fueling your opinion is the literal definition of subjective.

 

Are people this dense here?  I know the difference between subjective and objective. However, there is nothing saying that both cases can't be true.

 

The logo is NOT unique.  It contains basic, generic shapes and letters.  It has no historical context (unlike Green Bay's).  It has no significant tie to the city or the team.  It is boring.  It is void of character.  Those are all OBJECTIVE truths about the =B= logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

 

Are people this dense here?  I know the difference between subjective and objective. However, there is nothing saying that both cases can't be true.

 

The logo is NOT unique.  It contains basic, generic shapes and letters.  It has no historical context (unlike Green Bay's).  It has no significant tie to the city or the team.  It is boring.  It is void of character.  Those are all OBJECTIVE truths about the =B= logo.

 

I'm pretty sure "boring" is an opinion.  Just sayin.'  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.