Cleveland Browns Unveil New Uniforms

[C-Squared]

37 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

 

Are people this dense here?  I know the difference between subjective and objective.

 

 

No, you don't. Objectively, 99% of the content discussed on this site is subjective.

 

Density, too, is subjective.

[CLEstones]

5 minutes ago, C-Squared said:

 

No, you don't.

 

Density, too, is subjective.

 

EDIT:  Deleted.  Can a mod delete this.  Not getting into a petty argument with "C-Squared."

[CLEstones]

18 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

 

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

 

So, you would describe that =B= logo as lively, bright, exciting, and clever?

 

Or would you describe it as plain, dull, uninspired?

[radchad]

4 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

 

So, you would describe that =B= logo as lively, bright, exciting, and clever?

 

Or would you describe it as plain, dull, uninspired?

 

I describe it as a creative and identifiable mark for a team that doesn't have a concrete physical identity (in the way most teams have an animal or human mascot).  It's not fancy, but it does the job tastefully.

[leopard88]

19 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

 

So, you would describe that =B= logo as lively, bright, exciting, and clever?

 

Or would you describe it as plain, dull, uninspired?

 

7 minutes ago, radchad said:

 

I describe it as a creative and identifiable mark for a team that doesn't have a concrete physical identity (in the way most teams have an animal or human mascot).  It's not fancy, but it does the job tastefully.

 

What he said.  I would describe it as simple and effective for its intended use.  I wouldn't call it bright, but that's because it's hard to make something too bright using brown and orange unless you really want to downplay the brown.

[colortv]

What the Browns should do is introduce it as the primary logo, let fans get used to it and then revisit putting it on the helmet after a couple of years once people are comfortable with it. I really do think the "B" logo looks incredible on the helmet.

[CLEstones]

23 minutes ago, leopard88 said:

 

 

What he said.  I would describe it as simple and effective for its intended use.  I wouldn't call it bright, but that's because it's hard to make something too bright using brown and orange unless you really want to downplay the brown.

 

33 minutes ago, radchad said:

 

I describe it as a creative and identifiable mark for a team that doesn't have a concrete physical identity (in the way most teams have an animal or human mascot).  It's not fancy, but it does the job tastefully.

 

Wow.  I would describe that as reaching.  No disrespect.

 

Honestly, I could buy all that for Green Bay... Its been around for so long, its their history, it IS their identity.  But this clip art Browns logo is weak at best.  Its most significant feature is the stripe... which is the same stripe used on plenty of teams across the NFL, college, etc.  The =B= isn't strong.  It isn't identifiable.  If I had any sort of time to do anything these days, I would mock up similar logos for other teams, in different sports, and I think it would help illustrate how bad the logo would be comparatively. 

[leopard88]

14 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

 

 

Wow.  I would describe that as reaching.  No disrespect.

 

Honestly, I could buy all that for Green Bay... Its been around for so long, its their history, it IS their identity.  But this clip art Browns logo is weak at best.  Its most significant feature is the stripe... which is the same stripe used on plenty of teams across the NFL, college, etc.  The =B= isn't strong.  It isn't identifiable.  If I had any sort of time to do anything these days, I would mock up similar logos for other teams, in different sports, and I think it would help illustrate how bad the logo would be comparatively. 

 

None taken.

 

I would have a different opinion if another team introduced a similar logo.  However, as noted before, the Browns' calling card has generally been a basic, no nonsense image, right down to the helmet.  I think the logo could be tweaked to make it better (starting by changing the letter to a C), but I also believe it works for the Browns.

 

Consideration should also be given to the fact that the team name doesn't lend itself to a logo representing the nickname other than the elf.*  The bulldog refers to the fans, not the team, so I believe it would be a mistake to build around that image.

 

* -- My personal first choice, for the record.

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, CLEstones said:

 

EDIT:  Deleted.  Can a mod delete this.  Not getting into a petty argument with "C-Squared."

I would recommend not calling people "dense" for liking a logo you dislike if you want to avoid "petty arguments" around here. 

 

1 hour ago, CLEstones said:

 

So, you would describe that =B= logo as lively, bright, exciting, and clever?

 

Or would you describe it as plain, dull, uninspired?

Neither. I would describe it as classy and tasteful, and fitting for a team with an old-school mentality and look. 

The only change I would make would be to swap the B out for a C.

[The_Admiral]

22 hours ago, AstroBull21 said:

Seriously this one was alomost perfect, just swap the B for a C and JACKPOT.

 

 

Should be this but with a C, and the Bengals should go back to using the tiger head as the primary.

[oldschoolvikings]

16 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. 

 

I don't believe it would be possible to disagree more strongly to any post than I disagree with this one.  Well done... I guess?

[CLEstones]

24 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I would recommend not calling people "dense" for liking a logo you dislike if you want to avoid "petty arguments" around here. 

 

 

I would recommend reading the entirety of the conversation to understand what the "dense" comment was referring to before quoting someone out of context and out of ignorance, around here.

[oldschoolvikings]

6 hours ago, C-Squared said:

 

The elf is too campy for a pro team.

 

Oh, please.  It's this type of thinking that took us from this;

 

 

...to this;

 

I'll take fun and interesting over serious and boring eight days a week.

 

 

ELF!!

[Sykotyk]

1 hour ago, colortv said:

What the Browns should do is introduce it as the primary logo, let fans get used to it and then revisit putting it on the helmet after a couple of years once people are comfortable with it. I really do think the "B" logo looks incredible on the helmet.

That's not going to happen. Just because you have a logo doesn't mean it goes on the helmet. You can have a logo for merchandise that's not just a stock image of a helmet.

 

The problem is people like you that keep insisting that if the team adopt a logo that it will eventually appear on the helmet that results in the pushback by other fans to simply oppose any and all logos because they don't want something on the helmet. That's a reality of the situation. Having the only blank-sided helmet in the NFL is our trademark. It's instantly recognizable. Just as the Bengals' stripes are. But they're not selling all their merchandise with a tiger-striped helmet. They have something else for signage and merchandise.

[Classic Man]

The Cleveland Browns should never have a logo on their helmet. The blank helmet has been their identity since their beginning in the 1950's. I do believe they should adopt some sort of logo that is either a "C" or utilized that elf with an updated look. A dog logo doesn't work for me because I do believe the dog represented the fans during their late 80's/early 90's AFC Championship runs that were thwarted by the Denver Broncos. As for their uniforms, they are one of the teams that should have the basic (generic) classic uniforms such as the Packers, Bears, and Steelers. Their current set is an abomination.

 

[BJ Sands]

The Browns should have an actual logo and I'd love for it to be a variation of the =B= or even the elf.

 

The Browns should not have a logo on the helmet or uniforms.

 

Both of these things can be true at the same time.

[colortv]

57 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

That's not going to happen. Just because you have a logo doesn't mean it goes on the helmet. You can have a logo for merchandise that's not just a stock image of a helmet.

 

The problem is people like you that keep insisting that if the team adopt a logo that it will eventually appear on the helmet that results in the pushback by other fans to simply oppose any and all logos because they don't want something on the helmet. That's a reality of the situation. Having the only blank-sided helmet in the NFL is our trademark. It's instantly recognizable. Just as the Bengals' stripes are. But they're not selling all their merchandise with a tiger-striped helmet. They have something else for signage and merchandise.

 

I'm not insisting on anything. It's just a thought given I think they should definitely adopt that as the primary logo and think it could possibly be adapted to the helmet.

 

People need to relax in here. We're just talking about logos and football helmets. It's really not that serious.

[colortv]

2 hours ago, CLEstones said:

 

 

Wow.  I would describe that as reaching.  No disrespect.

 

Honestly, I could buy all that for Green Bay... Its been around for so long, its their history, it IS their identity.  But this clip art Browns logo is weak at best.  Its most significant feature is the stripe... which is the same stripe used on plenty of teams across the NFL, college, etc.  The =B= isn't strong.  It isn't identifiable.  If I had any sort of time to do anything these days, I would mock up similar logos for other teams, in different sports, and I think it would help illustrate how bad the logo would be comparatively. 

 

What exactly would you prefer?

 

There's not much you can do if it's not going to be an elf or dog given the name Browns.

 

With a name like Browns they need something sleek and simple. It's not any less creative than say the Bears or Giants logos.

 

It fits in well:

 

[colortv]

1 hour ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Oh, please.  It's this type of thinking that took us from this;

 

 

...to this;

 

I'll take fun and interesting over serious and boring eight days a week.

 

 

ELF!!

 

I see your point, but at least a Dolphin is an actual real living creature

[IceCap]

1 hour ago, CLEstones said:

 

I would recommend reading the entirety of the conversation to understand what the "dense" comment was referring to before quoting someone out of context and out of ignorance, around here.

Well never mind that this string of words doesn't make much sense...

 

Your "dense" comment wasn't even in the post of yours I quoted. So obviously I read the whole convo. 

I'm just cutting out the middle man and getting to the meat of the issue. You insulted a dude because he questioned your use of the word "objective" in reference to a logo you don't like.