Cleveland Browns Unveil New Uniforms

[LMU]

The NFL won't allow a team to go back to a jersey that thousands of fans still have in their closets.  That doesn't have enough dollar signs.

[SFGiants58]

I just want the ‘99-present Browns not to pretend to be the old team.
 

Honestly, and I know this is an extremely unpopular opinion, the identity shouldn’t have returned. It’s tainted the legacy of the old team to the point where many associate the name only with failure.

[andrewharrington]

16 minutes ago, RichardWitham said:

we may WANT them to go full throwback but CAN they? like would the NFL actually allow a full and direct replacement of the throwbacks we love for the browns? i highly doubt it unless for an alternate. their new stuff may be retro/throwback inspired, but they actually might not be able to make them direct copies

While I’m sure there are influential design, marketing, and merchandising professionals within the parties involved who would strongly recommend against it, I don’t think there’s a rule that prohibits it. The Giants, Colts, and 49ers have all essentially done this in the past 15 years or so.

[FinsUp1214]

Re: the Browns’ pant stripe, I never had a problem with orange/brown/orange on the white because I saw it as being the interior three stripes of the five stripe layout on the sleeves; brown/orange/brown/orange/brown, if that makes sense. So I always made that connection and could see how it “fit”. Just me, though.

 

 

[simtek34]

1 hour ago, RichardWitham said:

we may WANT them to go full throwback but CAN they? like would the NFL actually allow a full and direct replacement of the throwbacks we love for the browns? i highly doubt it unless for an alternate. their new stuff may be retro/throwback inspired, but they actually might not be able to make them direct copies

 

There's nothing stopping from doing so. There is a NBA rule that prevents teams from going back to an old logo or uniform (that's reason the Hornets didn't bring back their old look after rebranding from the Bobcats in 2014), but the NFL has no such rule of sorts. he Browns went back to their previous set in 1985 after changing in 1984, the Packers went back to an older look in 1989, the Jets and Giants (while not exact), went back to older uniforms, the Colts in 2003 went back to older uniforms (Gray Facemask and Navy Blue), the 2009 49ers went back to old minus the Logo being the newer version, went back to old uniforms, and the 2011 Bills went back to a close recreation of the 1970s (besides the unnecessary Navy Trim).

[chcarlson23]

1 hour ago, FinsUp1214 said:

Re: the Browns’ pant stripe, I never had a problem with orange/brown/orange on the white because I saw it as being the interior three stripes of the five stripe layout on the sleeves; brown/orange/brown/orange/brown, if that makes sense. So I always made that connection and could see how it “fit”. Just me, though.

 

 

The Browns have a lucky situation where no matter how the pants striped are ordered they fit with the other stripes. I do agree that it looks like the inside of the shoulder stripes, which is why it works. Other teams don't have that luck, like how the Bears stripes are O/W/O where they should be W/O/W.

[_DietDrPepper_]

1 hour ago, simtek34 said:

 

There's nothing stopping from doing so. There is a NBA rule that prevents teams from going back to an old logo or uniform (that's reason the Hornets didn't bring back their old look after rebranding from the Bobcats in 2014), but the NFL has no such rule of sorts. he Browns went back to their previous set in 1985 after changing in 1984, the Packers went back to an older look in 1989, the Jets and Giants (while not exact), went back to older uniforms, the Colts in 2003 went back to older uniforms (Gray Facemask and Navy Blue), the 2009 49ers went back to old minus the Logo being the newer version, went back to old uniforms, and the 2011 Bills went back to a close recreation of the 1970s (besides the unnecessary Navy Trim).

So you’re saying there’s a chance?

[oldschoolvikings]

9 hours ago, BellaSpurs said:

So you’re saying there’s a chance?

 

There's no rule that says they can't, but the language they're using to describe the upcoming change makes it sound like it won't be a simple do over of any previous look.  Sounds like they're taking a classic look, and fiddling with it. The question that will occupy us for the next few months is will the fiddling be some minor adjustments, or a major screw up. My guess is somewhere in between. I think the new uniform will be a huge improvement over the last five years, but will have enough annoying head scratching touches to set the board on fire.

[Gothamite]

And with rumors that the Rams are essentiallly doing the same thing, it’ll be interesting to compare and contrast the results once released. 

[infrared41]

2 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

There's no rule that says they can't, but the language they're using to describe the upcoming change makes it sound like it won't be a simple do over of any previous look.  Sounds like they're taking a classic look, and fiddling with it. The question that will occupy us for the next few months is will the fiddling be some minor adjustments, or a major screw up. My guess is somewhere in between. I think the new uniform will be a huge improvement over the last five years, but will have enough annoying head scratching touches to set the board on fire.

 

My guess is the Browns will ruin the look with some stupid proprietary number font designed to "represent" Cleveland. (Can't wait for the Nike-speak on that one.)  I don't get the whole proprietary number font thing. It's not like counterfeiters aren't going to copy it anyway and other than that, who cares if it's a number font specific to one team? 

[The_Admiral]

The indentations represent the shores of Lake Erie and the serifs being short represent Dennis Kucinich.

[oldschoolvikings]

28 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

And with rumors that the Rams are essentiallly doing the same thing, it’ll be interesting to compare and contrast the results once released. 

 

Yeah, this seems to be the obvious direction for any team that has some history.  If a team has "gone modern" in the past decade or two, and is looking for a change, looking to the past is probably what they should do. And I know a lot of people on this site like to say "just go back to what they had before" but I can understand why that is not really what the team wants to do. I think there are two main reasons why the Rams, Browns, and Buccaneers aren't going to simple hit the reset button;

 

1.  It feels too much like admitting they made a mistake. For the Browns and Bucs specifically, just bringing back the previous uniform would be less about "Hey, check out our new uniforms" and more "wow, did we blow it last time or what?"  Which we all know they did, but that's not how billion dollar corporations want to be seen.

 

And 2. When you hire big time designers to come in and work on your brand, they are going to want to leave their mark. They just are. Hell, I'm as big of a grumpy traditionalist as we have around here, but if a team asked me to design them a new uniform, you better believe I'd add more than a few touches of my own. (Check out my stuff in the concepts section... it's pretty much all "tradition with a twist")   Seriously, who wouldn't?

 

So, no.  IMO the Browns are not going to bring back Jim Brown's uniform just as it was. The Rams are not going to just promote the throwback. And the Bucs (should they actually be changing) are not going to look just like 2000 or 1980 again. And I'm OK with that.  Actually, starting with an old look, but adding some more modern updates is exactly what these teams should be doing. And not just them, but I'd like to see the Eagles, Falcons, and Broncos go in this direction too. The key, as always, is to do it well. More like the Bills (and arguably the Vikings and Lions), less like the Chargers. 

[Sport]

35 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Yeah, this seems to be the obvious direction for any team that has some history.  If a team has "gone modern" in the past decade or two, and is looking for a change, looking to the past is probably what they should do. And I know a lot of people on this site like to say "just go back to what they had before" but I can understand why that is not really what the team wants to do. I think there are two main reasons why the Rams, Browns, and Buccaneers aren't going to simple hit the reset button;

 

1.  It feels too much like admitting they made a mistake. For the Browns and Bucs specifically, just bringing back the previous uniform would be less about "Hey, check out our new uniforms" and more "wow, did we blow it last time or what?"  Which we all know they did, but that's not how billion dollar corporations want to be seen.

 

And 2. When you hire big time designers to come in and work on your brand, they are going to want to leave their mark. They just are. Hell, I'm as big of a grumpy traditionalist as we have around here, but if a team asked me to design them a new uniform, you better believe I'd add more than a few touches of my own. (Check out my stuff in the concepts section... it's pretty much all "tradition with a twist")   Seriously, who wouldn't?

 

So, no.  IMO the Browns are not going to bring back Jim Brown's uniform just as it was. The Rams are not going to just promote the throwback. And the Bucs (should they actually be changing) are not going to look just like 2000 or 1980 again. And I'm OK with that.  Actually, starting with an old look, but adding some more modern updates is exactly what these teams should be doing. And not just them, but I'd like to see the Eagles, Falcons, and Broncos go in this direction too. The key, as always, is to do it well. More like the Bills (and arguably the Vikings and Lions), less like the Chargers. 

 

Unless the team goes to the league and specifically asks for the old look, which I don't suspect the Browns will do because of point #1, then #2 is why we'll see something different and new. Nobody's going to be handed that assignment and go "Why don't they just wear the old uniforms? Done. Where we going to lunch?". This is just how sports design works now. In 1985 the Browns could go back and correct he mistake of 1984 with very little difficulty. Now, though, they first have to wear the crappy uniforms for 5 years before they're even allowed to change and then they're probably highly encouraged to seek out another new design. 

[oldschoolvikings]

11 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

Unless the team goes to the league and specifically asks for the old look, which I don't suspect the Browns will do because of point #1, then #2 is why we'll see something different and new. Nobody's going to be handed that assignment and go "Why don't they just wear the old uniforms? Done. Where we going to lunch?". This is just how sports design works now. In 1985 the Browns could go back and correct he mistake of 1984 with very little difficulty. Now, though, they first have to wear the crappy uniforms for 5 years before they're even allowed to change and then they're probably highly encouraged to seek out another new design. 

 

Although, honestly, "where are we going for lunch?" is pretty much my favorite question, every day.  I'm asking it to myself, right now.  I'm thinking Mexican, but not junky Mexican, which in this town means heading for southwest Detroit. But I don't know if I have enough time to pull that off.  Also, I'd go to a good BBQ joint just for the side dishes. Sometimes, lunch definitely feels like the biggest and most thought-out decision of the day.

[andrewharrington]

1 hour ago, infrared41 said:

 

My guess is the Browns will ruin the look with some stupid proprietary number font designed to "represent" Cleveland. (Can't wait for the Nike-speak on that one.)  I don't get the whole proprietary number font thing. It's not like counterfeiters aren't going to copy it anyway and other than that, who cares if it's a number font specific to one team? 

The numbers and nameplate lettering are actually one of the easiest ways to spot a fake, because counterfeiters never get the proportions quite right.

 

From a design perspective, it’s just an easy way to bring the typographic personality of your brand into your uniform, which makes the whole presentation more cohesive, more unique, and more recognizable. I mean, why wouldn’t you want the type you use on your uniforms to have some sort of stylistic connection to the type you have on all your merchandise or in the stadium/arena or on your website? People obviously go overboard with the actual design of custom numbers, but that’s an issue with design, not an issue with custom numbers themselves. You’ve just got to be smart with it.

 

Imagine your reaction if the Packers ditched their signature “5” for the standard one used by all the other Ripon block teams.

[Eszcz21]

1 minute ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Although, honestly, "where are we going for lunch?" is pretty much my favorite question, every day.  I'm asking it to myself, right now.  I'm thinking Mexican, but not junky Mexican, which in this town means heading for southwest Detroit. But I don't know if I have enough time to pull that off.  Also, I'd go to a good BBQ joint just for the side dishes. Sometimes, lunch definitely feels like the biggest and most thought-out decision of the day.

Nothing better than grabbing some food in Mexicantown.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

15 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

Although, honestly, "where are we going for lunch?" is pretty much my favorite question, every day.  I'm asking it to myself, right now.  I'm thinking Mexican, but not junky Mexican, which in this town means heading for southwest Detroit. But I don't know if I have enough time to pull that off.  Also, I'd go to a good BBQ joint just for the side dishes. Sometimes, lunch definitely feels like the biggest and most thought-out decision of the day.

 

mmmm lunch.  A BBQ joint with good side dishes is fantastic, but to me that's a dinner option.  Personally, with lunch I want to be filled up, but not toooo filled up.  Don't wanna be in a slog the rest of the day.  With dinner I empty the hunger clip and feast.  I'm thinking sushi or a nearby deli for my lunch today.  

[Sport]

17 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

I just want the ‘99-present Browns not to pretend to be the old team.
 

 

They're not, but you can read my thoughts on this many times over on this very website. No reason to get into it all over again. 

 

17 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Honestly, and I know this is an extremely unpopular opinion, the identity shouldn’t have returned. It’s tainted the legacy of the old team to the point where many associate the name only with failure.

 

Not only is that an unpopular opinion, but it's also unreasonable thing to hold to them. The fans fought for those colors and uniforms so Cleveland was just never going to scratch their way back to the NFL and then come out as the Cleveland Lake Gators or whatever. I don't worry about performance affecting a team's legacy because A. why's it matter? 2. it already had losing stink on it before the move so what's being preserved?, iii. a couple good years and that legacy will be fine. It's not the brand that's holding them back. The Packers were at one point accused of tarnishing the legacy of Vince Lombardi and now they're back to being The Packers. IV. An NFL without the Cleveland Browns just isn't as fun. 

[BBTV]

It'll look traditional - like an old Browns jersey - and then they'll hit us with this:

 

"The jersey numbers and player-name letters are formed from dog bones, representing the team's relationship with a section of its fans known as the 'dog pound'.  The word 'WOOF!' will appear on the inside of the collar, to serve as a reminder to each player who wears the jersey that they need to take the field with the intensity of a rabid dog."

 

 

 

[SFGiants58]

24 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

Not only is that an unpopular opinion, but it's also unreasonable thing to hold to them. The fans fought for those colors and uniforms so Cleveland was just never going to scratch their way back to the NFL and then come out as the Cleveland Lake Gators or whatever.

 

True, but they should have just gotten an expansion team that evoked the Browns, rather than actually being the Browns. Ottawa CFL does it right (keep the colors, name that starts with “R,” etc.).

 

24 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

I don't worry about performance affecting a team's legacy because A. why's it matter?

 

It matters because it’s erased the place of those great Browns teams in the public consciousness. 

 

24 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

2. it already had losing stink on it before the move so what's being preserved?,

 

Not really, no. The team was mediocre, not outright awful. There wasn’t that same sense of futility that they’ve had since 1999. 

 

24 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

iii. a couple good years and that legacy will be fine. It's not the brand that's holding them back. The Packers were at one point accused of tarnishing the legacy of Vince Lombardi and now they're back to being The Packers.

 

The Packers were never as hopeless as the modern Browns. Those Packer teams never had a solitary win in two calendar years. The Packers never left Green Bay, only to come back as an expansion club pretending to be the old team.

 

Besides, I think it’s very unlikely that the nu-Browns will ever turn it around for good. 

 

24 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

IV. An NFL without the Cleveland Browns just isn't as fun. 

The NFL would be fine.