Cleveland Browns Unveil New Uniforms

[Sec19Row53]

16 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

 

They got a the basics of the uniform correct.

 

Minor changes:

• Remove contrast stitching
• Remove rise-shadow
• Use their new wordmark font instead of the pointed serif font
• Reduce the CLEVELAND wordmark on the shirt
• Remove the carbon pattern from the helmet stripe

 

Major changes:

• Remove the BROWNS wordmark from the pants
• Reduce the shoulder stripes to the shoulder caps
• balance the white on brown and brown on white... there is just too much orange.

This doesn't strike me as being 'not too far' from a great set.

[CLEstones]

34 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

This doesn't strike me as being 'not too far' from a great set.

 

34 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

This doesn't strike me as being 'not too far' from a great set.

 

I mean I guess if you wanna be THAT guy, sure.

 

But to be honest, nothing is really THAT drastic, except for maybe 1 or 2 aspects.  They got the primary design elements right.

 

The rise-shadow, font, contrast stitching, and carbon fiber pattern wouldnt even be noticeable to the vast majority of fans.  Even the reduction of wordmark on the chest and shoulder stripes would be minimal and hardly noticeable during on-field action.

 

The only major change would be the wordmark on the pants and balancing the whites and browns.

[IceCap]

2 hours ago, CLEstones said:

 

 

To be honest, these uniforms aren't too far from being a great set.  If they just toned everything down, they would have been a great update/refresh.

The problem is that every change you could make to make the current set better just pushes it closer to the classic uniform the current set replaced. 

Which is an indication that the change was unnecessary to begin with. 

[oldschoolvikings]

I strongly dislike the new ruddy orange, but I have a bad feeling it isn't going anywhere.

[CLEstones]

3 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

The problem is that every change you could make to make the current set better just pushes it closer to the classic uniform the current set replaced. 

Which is an indication that the change was unnecessary to begin with. 

 

It may have not been necessary, but I would argue it was needed.  I think the upgraded orange helped a lot... the old orange and brown just made everything looked washed out, like you dusted off the box of tshirts in the attic from when you were 6 years old.

 

I think emphasizing the same stripe pattern was a good idea, since the team really doesn't an iconic logo... they have an iconic helmet.  So bringing that element to the jersey was, in my opinion, a solid design choice.

 

And then when it came to the font, once again, when you don't have a logo of any sort, having a little bit of flare with the font isn't a bad idea... they just ignored a perfect good font from the wordmark and made some awkward pointed serif font.

[IceCap]

3 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

I think the upgraded orange helped a lot

It's too bright in my opinion. The old shade was perfect. 

 

3 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

I think emphasizing the same stripe pattern was a good idea, since the team really doesn't an iconic logo

Apparently the upcoming rebrand will introduce a proper logo. Maybe I'm being naive but I think they'll manage something that befits their legacy status. The new uniform is going for a "classic" look so they'll probably design the logo to go along with that. 

 

5 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

It may have not been necessary, but I would argue it was needed. 

I don't see why, honestly. The team itself has said they're going in a classic direction for this redesign, five years after moving away from their classic uniform. Seems like an admission that the changes back in 2015 were ill-advised. 

[hugevolsfan]

34 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

 

 

I mean I guess if you wanna be THAT guy, sure.

 

But to be honest, nothing is really THAT drastic, except for maybe 1 or 2 aspects.  They got the primary design elements right.

 

The rise-shadow, font, contrast stitching, and carbon fiber pattern wouldnt even be noticeable to the vast majority of fans.  Even the reduction of wordmark on the chest and shoulder stripes would be minimal and hardly noticeable during on-field action.

 

The only major change would be the wordmark on the pants and balancing the whites and browns.

He is not being that guy... The only thing you are keeping on the look is the striping on the jersey everything else would be left off from the redesign... To me minor would be just change the pant stripes & you would have a great set that is minor but when you change almost everything they did that is not minor that is a complete redesign....

[PrimalCookie]

- Get rid of “Browns” down the pants

- Flip the number colors, so that it’s white with an orange shadow on the brown and brown with an orange shadow on the white

- Get rid of contrast stitching and the carbon fiber pattern

 

There you go. This keeps the large wordmark, the font, the “up-shadow”, the extended stripes, and the orange, while significantly upgrading the look.

[Goatiest Maximian]

Man if only the NFL would let teams have another helmet

[CLEstones]

19 minutes ago, hugevolsfan said:

He is not being that guy... The only thing you are keeping on the look is the striping on the jersey everything else would be left off from the redesign... To me minor would be just change the pant stripes & you would have a great set that is minor but when you change almost everything they did that is not minor that is a complete redesign....

 

I guess it depends on your definition of minor.  Just because there would be numerous changes, none of them are really that major that a pedestrian fan would notice (shoulder stripe, helmet stripe, stitching, font, rise-shadow, wordmark).  For me, major changes is when you change 90% of the stripe on the pants, which is what they would be doing by removing the wordmark.  Semantics, I guess.

[IceCap]

12 minutes ago, Magic Dynasty said:

There you go. This keeps the large wordmark, the font, the “up-shadow”, the extended stripes, and the orange, while significantly upgrading the look.

Yeah but you're still dealing with the dumb collegiate wordmark, the "up shadow," the stupid number font, and the extended stripes! 

 

See, all the stuff you mentioned keeping? To me? It's more noise that they should probably ditch. And the longer discussions about what to keep from the current set about go on? The more it becomes clear that they never should have dropped the classic look in the first place. 

 

3 minutes ago, Goatiest Maximian said:

Man if only the NFL would let teams have another helmet

The single helmet rule is the greatest uniform rule on the books in the NFL.   

 

Yes I'm stealing @oldschoolvikings' bit, but he's right. 

[CLEstones]

38 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

It's too bright in my opinion. The old shade was perfect. 

 

Apparently the upcoming rebrand will introduce a proper logo. Maybe I'm being naive but I think they'll manage something that befits their legacy status. The new uniform is going for a "classic" look so they'll probably design the logo to go along with that. 

 

I don't see why, honestly. The team itself has said they're going in a classic direction for this redesign, five years after moving away from their classic uniform. Seems like an admission that the changes back in 2015 were ill-advised. 

 

Agree to disagree on the orange.  I just felt like everything look washed out... and I'm a uniform traditionalist.

 

I think a proper logo is sorely needed.  The best idea was last time around when the (false) rumor was a Paul Brown silhouette. It would have been unique and somewhat understated, which would have matched the identity quite well.

 

Once again, I dont think the rebrand/update was necessary but it was needed.  I think the team and franchise just needed something, some sort of jolt of life - yes, we know, just win and its all different.  Got it.  Everyone gets it.  Move on.  I know it gave some life to the fanbase up here.  It wasnt' necessary like the Bengals or Jacksonville... but I think it was something beneficial.

[IceCap]

On 7/29/2019 at 4:32 PM, CLEstones said:

Once again, I dont think the rebrand/update was necessary but it was needed.  I think the team and franchise just needed something, some sort of jolt of life - yes, we know, just win and its all different.  Got it.  Everyone gets it.  Move on.  I know it gave some life to the fanbase up here.  It wasnt' necessary like the Bengals or Jacksonville... but I think it was something beneficial.

They spent most of the time in that uniform sucking wind (including an 0-16 season) and the team actively began moving away from the identity as soon as they were able to. 

 

So I'm not sure how "needed" or how much of a "jolt of life" it really was. Most of the truly horrendous Browns football took place in the soon-to-be-discarded look, and it's fitting that they're finally turning it around as they begin moving in a classic direction.  

[Sec19Row53]

7 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

 

Agree to disagree on the orange.  I just felt like everything look washed out... and I'm a uniform traditionalist.

 

I think a proper logo is sorely needed.  The best idea was last time around when the (false) rumor was a Paul Brown silhouette. It would have been unique and somewhat understated, which would have matched the identity quite well.

 

Once again, I dont think the rebrand/update was necessary but it was needed.  I think the team and franchise just needed something, some sort of jolt of life - yes, we know, just win and its all different.  Got it.  Everyone gets it.  Move on.  I know it gave some life to the fanbase up here.  It wasnt' necessary like the Bengals or Jacksonville... but I think it was something beneficial.

Ummm - same thing? necessary means needed??

[CLEstones]

2 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

They spent most of the time in that uniform sucking wind (including an 0-16 season) and the team actively began moving away from the identity as soon as they were able to. 

 

So I'm not sure how "needed" or how much of a "jolt of life" it really was. Most of the truly horrendous Browns football took place in the soon-to-be-discarded look, and its fitting that they're finally turning it around as they begin moving in a classic direction.  

 

You aren't wrong.  I'm just saying, it did add some life back into the fan base (until they were released), it got some of the younger fans (myself, included) who have only known losing SOMETHING to be excited about.  It gave fans something to rally around.  Let's be honest, before the 1-31, it's not like the franchise was a world beat for the 15 years before that.

[CLEstones]

Just now, Sec19Row53 said:

Ummm - same thing? necessary means needed??

 

Obviously, by Webster's dictionary.  I was using it more to split hairs, oblivious not taking literal definition into account.  Most are able to understand the distinction without having explicit clarification. 

[IceCap]

9 minutes ago, CLEstones said:

I think a proper logo is sorely needed.  The best idea was last time around when the (false) rumor was a Paul Brown silhouette. It would have been unique and somewhat understated, which would have matched the identity quite well.

Hasn't the Brown family been on the outs with the team for decades? Paul's son owns a divisional rival after all. 

 

One reason I liked the <=B=> logo was that it seemed like something that could have been designed in the 50s or 60s. It wasn't perfect- I would have gone with a C instead of a B- but it seemed appropriately "classic" for a team like the Browns. It felt like a logo that could exist alongside the Packers' G or the Bears' C. It also emphasized the stripes, which I agree with you about. Any Browns logo should try to use that element. 

 

The Browns have a variety of options. Go with the elf, the bulldog, maybe something like the <=B=> that attempts to  mimic the "classic" NFL aesthetic? I really hope they don't go with an artistic depiction of a football helmet though. 

"Hey guys! I know you're all tired of using a picture of a football helmet as our logo, so we designed a proper one for you! It's a football helmet!"

 

Just...no

[WSU151]

I think @andrewharrington's avatar is just about perfection. 

[PrimalCookie]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

Yeah but you're still dealing with the dumb collegiate wordmark, the "up shadow," the stupid number font, and the extended stripes! 

I guess that’s just where our tastes differ. I think that all of those things look fine and are worth keeping in a new set. 

[Sec19Row53]

1 hour ago, CLEstones said:

 

Obviously, by Webster's dictionary.  I was using it more to split hairs, oblivious not taking literal definition into account.  Most are able to understand the distinction without having explicit clarification. 

Sorry. I'm oblivious to your obvious distinction.