Cleveland Browns Unveil New Uniforms

[MJWalker45]

14 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

The NFL would be fine. 

But Cleveland Browns Fans wouldn't be. 

[-Akronite-]

16 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

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.).

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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. 

 

The NFL would be fine. 

 

I think if people know how bad the expansion franchise was going to be, many in Cleveland would have been willing to wait for a better situation. As things are, it's a goddamn mess of a franchise and an embarrassment to the city and the sport.

 

The history, colors, and name belong to the city and I would love to see the team find glory again, but the real fans of the team have had to go through so much and even this season when they should have been decent they mostly just frustrated everyone.

 

The NFL doesn't need the Browns but I don't think it needs any franchise. 

 

As for the great teams that are being erased from the public consciousness, Father Time had done a great job of that by the debut of the 99 team. The Browns didn't have a great reputation when they left and the expansion team has made it worse and worse and worse. But the truth is, a few good teams and/or a Super Bowl appearance changes things/perceptions really fast. The Warriors were an overlooked joke not too long ago, for instance. The Pats pre-2000 were not a franchise to envy. Not saying the Browns will ever do it, but if they could it'd make the city and most casual fans see the team in a new light.

[LMU]

12 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

But Cleveland Browns Fans wouldn't be. 

Cleveland Browns fans could have just dealt with it like Houston Oilers fans managed to.

[SFGiants58]

8 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

But Cleveland Browns Fans wouldn't be. 

Do what the Oilers, Ottawa CFL, Minnesota North Stars, and Baltimore Colts fans did, just deal with it. 
 

2 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

 

I think if people know how bad the expansion franchise was going to be, many in Cleveland would have been willing to wait for a better situation. As things are, it's a goddamn mess of a franchise and an embarrassment to the city and the sport.

 

 

With a different name, things may have turned out to be less disappointing. There would be no “legacy” to fulfill.

 

2 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

The history, colors, and name belong to the city

 

They rightfully belong to the Baltimore Ravens, but I get it.

 

2 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

and I would love to see the team find glory again, but the real fans of the team have had to go through so much and even this season when they should have been decent they mostly just frustrated everyone.

 

The NFL doesn't need the Browns but I don't think it needs any franchise. 

Those are both fair points.

 

2 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

As for the great teams that are being erased from the public consciousness, Father Time had done a great job of that by the debut of the 99 team. The Browns didn't have a great reputation when they left and the expansion team has made it worse and worse and worse.

 

True, but I think there was a shred of hope for the old Browns compared to the expansion club.

 

2 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

But the truth is, a few good teams and/or a Super Bowl appearance changes things/perceptions really fast. The Warriors were an overlooked joke not too long ago, for instance. The Pats pre-2000 were not a franchise to envy. Not saying the Browns will ever do it, but if they could it'd make the city and most casual fans see the team in a new light.

That’s probably true, but I just don’t see it happening. This franchise is too broken, the ownership too entrenched, and the NFL too stacked to really allow it.

 

Baltimore Ravens and Cleveland (word that starts with “B”) would have been the best solution, IMHO. Unpopular, yes, but that’s how I see it. 

[Glover]

35 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

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

Anytime I have ever in my life brought up the 40's or 50's Browns teams, the response has been "those rings don't count, it wasn't the Super Bowl back then" or something along those lines. Safe to say they were already erased from the casual football fan's mind before the Browns even moved. 

[hawk36]

8 minutes ago, LMU said:

Cleveland Browns fans could have just dealt with it like Houston Oilers fans managed to.

This is an age old discussion. Like many, I've always thought the name/brand etc. belongs more to the city than the franchise but I also understand the arguments of those who don't feel that way. I don't see either of the sides ever changing so it is what it is.

 

Bear in mind I'm coming from the perspective of a San Diegan / Seattlite who's lost the Clippers, Sonics, and Chargers. Until you've had a team ripped from your soul, you have no idea what it's like and what it does to a community. 

[-Akronite-]

1 minute ago, SFGiants58 said:

Do what the Oilers, Ottawa CFL, Minnesota North Stars, and Baltimore Colts fans did, just deal with it. 
 

 

With a different name, things may have turned out to be less disappointing. There would be no “legacy” to fulfill.

 

 

They rightfully belong to the CITY OF CLEVELAND AND THEIR FOOTBALL FRANCHISE THE BROWNS, but I obviously don't get it. 

 

Those are both fair points.

 

 

True, but I think there was a shred of hope for the old Browns compared to the expansion club.

 

That’s probably true, but I just don’t see it happening. This franchise is too broken, the ownership too entrenched, and the NFL too stacked to really allow it.

 

Baltimore Ravens and Cleveland (word that starts with “B”) would have been the best solution, IMHO. Unpopular, yes, but that’s how I see it. 

 

Wait, so you're blaming the name itself? Like if they had picked some other name it would've have magically given the new franchise a fresh chance to create a winner? I don't buy it. Yeah, no, the issue is not that there was too much pressure to uphold a legacy. The Browns were a punchline by the time they left, what legacy were they trying to uphold? Zero Super Bowls? Having lost embarrassingly/heartbreakingly ever time they made the playoffs? Hmmm, maybe you're right. They tried really hard to live up to the name and went too far! 

 

The old franchise was better, RIGHTFULLY it should never have left. Things are as they are now though, so it's mostly moot. They are the Browns and they should look like it. Hopefully, someday, they will play in a way that evokes the days of the old franchise (there were good times too, I'm being a sourpuss). 

[LMU]

2 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

This is an age old discussion. Like many, I've always thought the name/brand etc. belongs more to the city than the franchise but I also understand the arguments of those who don't feel that way. I don't see either of the sides ever changing so it is what it is.

 

Bear in mind I'm coming from the perspective of a San Diegan / Seattlite who's lost the Clippers, Sonics, and Chargers. Until you've had a team ripped from your soul, you have no idea what it's like and what it does to a community. 

I lost two NFL teams in a single offseason as a kid.  I know all about it.  Just glad we got the right one back 20 years later.

 

That said, in this case the name "Browns" isn't even Cleveland-specific.  It's of the same ilk (if not less cheesy) as "Charlotte Bobcats."

[Gothamite]

Look, if the 49ers can swallow their pride and go back to their classic uniforms, then the Browns can too.

[SFGiants58]

26 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

 

Wait, so you're blaming the name itself? Like if they had picked some other name it would've have magically given the new franchise a fresh chance to create a winner? I don't buy it. 
 

 

Nope.

 

Quote

Yeah, no, the issue is not that there was too much pressure to uphold a legacy. The Browns were a punchline by the time they left, what legacy were they trying to uphold? Zero Super Bowls? Having lost embarrassingly/heartbreakingly ever time they made the playoffs?
 

 

At that time, they were more akin to the post-60s Packers, the Lions, or the Cardinals.

 

Now, as an expansion team, the situation is different. Also, nice edit in the bolded. Those records still rightfully belong to the Ravens.

 

Quote

Hmmm, maybe you're right. They tried really hard to live up to the name and went too far! 

 

 

Heh. I wasn’t making the argument that things would be better. I was simply saying that I wish they didn’t bring the brand back.

 

Quote

The old franchise was better, RIGHTFULLY it should never have left. Things are as they are now though, so it's mostly moot. They are the Browns and they should look like it.

 

True, but they’re still not the real Browns. They’re the fake Browns. Stop pretending to be Jim Brown’s club and act like the disadvantaged expansion team you are.

 

Quote

Hopefully, someday, they will play in a way that evokes the days of the old franchise (there were good times too, I'm being a sourpuss). 

Again, I doubt it.

 

27 minutes ago, hawk36 said:

Bear in mind I'm coming from the perspective of a San Diegan / Seattlite who's lost the Clippers, Sonics, and Chargers. Until you've had a team ripped from your soul, you have no idea what it's like and what it does to a community. 

I can guess. But that doesn’t give you ownership of the records or prevent maintaining brands upon relocation. The modern San José Earthquakes are phonies, while the real Quakes are in Houston.
 

20 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Look, if the 49ers can swallow their pride and go back to their classic uniforms, then the Browns can too.

The modern Niners aren’t an expansion team.

 

[shaydre1019]

19 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

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.

iirc, the NBA has that exact rule in place. You can take inspiration from old designs but can't revert to it so that the hardwood classics could still be used/sold. 

[Gothamite]

The NBA does.  The NFL doesn't.  Which is why the 49ers were able to bring back their old uniforms virtually unchanged, as the Browns should.

[Sport]

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

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.).

 

Nothing short of being the Cleveland Browns would've been acceptable. There's no end-around to this and they shouldn't have been the Cleveland Bulldogs or some half-step. That's what they demanded and I applaud them for it. Also, if they'd named themselves the Cleveland Bulldogs then the Cleveland Bulldogs would be the punchline right now. The brand identity is not the problem.

 

Ottawa shouldn't be the roughriders because a league with fewer than 10 teams doesn't need two roughriders. It had as much to do with Ottawa separating their brand from Saskatchewan as it did separating the new team's history from previous franchises in the city. 

 

Quote

 

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

yeah and who cares? This happens all the time in sports where once proud franchises fall on hard times. No other team has people demanding they change their name so as to not soil the memories of the glory days.

 

And if they start winning again it'll all take care of itself. 

 

Quote

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

 

I don't think you're right about this. They had The drive, The Fumble, Red Right 88, the near collapse against the Jets in the 86 playoffs. In those days the Browns weren't as bad, they were often good, but the fans always had this (deserved) sense of dread that when they got close something bad was going to happen because it always did. There was a sense of futility, it was just different from how it is now. The point is by 1995 the championship aura they'd earned with Otto Graham and Paul Brown and all those guys was LONG gone. 

 

Quote

 

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.

 

Nitpicking records isn't the point. The point is the Packers were bad and were also accused of tarnishing a legacy. They figured it out and nobody says that about them any longer. The same thing can happen in Cleveland. 

 

They're not "pretending" to be the old team as much as you guys love to say that. 

 

Quote

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

 

There's a law of averages that says eventually they will figure it out. Every team in pro sports eventually figures it out. I just watched the goddamn Raptors, Blues, and Nationals win championships fercripessake.

 

Quote

The NFL would be fine. 

 

Yeah of course it would. I said the NFL wouldn't be as fun without them because it wouldn't. 

 

52 minutes ago, LMU said:

Cleveland Browns fans could have just dealt with it like Houston Oilers fans managed to.

 

maybe Houston Oilers fans should've dealt with it the way Browns fans dealt with it? I'd rather have them than a team called the Texans. 

[shaydre1019]

2 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

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.

As a Texans fan living in Houston, it infuriates me how bad the Texans counterfeits are. The number outlines are like 1/5 the thickness of real jerseys, they look so bad and people don't care/notice. That's only the tip of the iceberg, but i don't wanna derail this thread. 

But i do like custom typography as long as it looks good. Houston nailed it from day 1 in that regard. 

[-Akronite-]

10 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Now, as an expansion team, the situation is different. Also, nice edit in the bolded. Those records still rightfully belong to the Ravens.

 

True, but they’re still not the real Browns. They’re the fake Browns. Stop pretending to be Jim Brown’s club and act like the disadvantaged expansion team you are.

 

 

This is how you'd like things to be, but the NFL specifically designated it otherwise. Obviously it's a philosophical disagreement (franchise v city/fan ownership), so we aren't gonna land on the same page.

 

The Ravens aren't the Browns. The New Browns are also not really the old Browns, but they are the Cleveland Browns nonetheless.

[Sec19Row53]

8 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

 

This is how you'd like things to be, but the NFL specifically designated it otherwise. Obviously it's a philosophical disagreement (franchise v city/fan ownership), so we aren't gonna land on the same page.

 

The Ravens aren't the Browns. The New Browns are also not really the old Browns, but they are the Cleveland Browns nonetheless.

Quoting to highlight this.

 

I agree with this and I guess I always have, but I'm not sure I recall reading this before (amazingly given that Clevejacked is a thing around here).

[SFGiants58]

3 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

Nothing short of being the Cleveland Browns would've been acceptable. There's no end-around to this and they shouldn't have been the Cleveland Bulldogs or some half-step.

 

The “half-step” was the right step.

 

3 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

That's what they demanded and I applaud them for it.

 

They got what they wanted, but at what cost?

 

3 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

Also, if they'd named themselves the Cleveland Bulldogs then the Cleveland Bulldogs would be the punchline right now. The brand identity is not the problem.

 

True, but it’s not like it helped.

 

3 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

Ottawa shouldn't be the roughriders because a league with fewer than 10 teams doesn't need two roughriders. It had as much to do with Ottawa separating their brand from Saskatchewan as it did separating the new team's history from previous franchises in the city. 

 

True, but it’s also giving the city a fresh start. 

 

3 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

yeah and who cares? This happens all the time in sports where once proud franchises fall on hard times. No other team has people demanding they change their name so as to not soil the memories of the glory days.

 

And if they start winning again it'll all take care of itself. 

 

A fair point, but I don’t see it happening. 

 

3 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

I don't think you're right about this. They had The drive, The Fumble, Red Right 88, the near collapse against the Jets in the 86 playoffs. In those days the Browns weren't as bad, they were often good, but the fans always had this (deserved) sense of dread that when they got close something bad was going to happen because it always did. There was a sense of futility, it was just different from how it is now. The point is by 1995 the championship aura they'd earned with Otto Graham and Paul Brown and all those guys was LONG gone. 

 

It’s more akin to the Vikings than what they are now, which is the Lions, Cardinals, and (because they’re an expansion team) Jaguars.

 

3 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

Nitpicking records isn't the point. The point is the Packers were bad and were also accused of tarnishing a legacy. They figured it out and nobody says that about them any longer. The same thing can happen in Cleveland. 
 

 

Not really, no.

 

3 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

They're not "pretending" to be the old team as much as you guys love to say that. 

 

Yeah, they got the NFL to give them special treatment.

 

3 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

There's a law of averages that says eventually they will figure it out. Every team in pro sports eventually figures it out. I just watched the goddamn Raptors, Blues, and Nationals win championships fercripessake.

 

Yes, but when has “law of averages” truly worked in the NFL? The Cardinals, Lions, Jets, Jaguars, and Bengals have never truly “figured it out.” The Saints and Pats are the exception.

 

3 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

Yeah of course it would. I said the NFL wouldn't be as fun without them because it wouldn't. 

 

It would be just as fun, because the Browns are either boring or awful. 

 

3 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

maybe Houston Oilers should've dealt with it the way Browns fans dealt with it? 

Nah.

[MJWalker45]

1 hour ago, LMU said:

Cleveland Browns fans could have just dealt with it like Houston Oilers fans managed to.

But we didn't. We actually hoped for the league to tell Modell, he can't move the team but that wasn't going to happen. So we asked for our name and colors to stay. That was a half measure to us.

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

Do what the Oilers, Ottawa CFL, Minnesota North Stars, and Baltimore Colts fans did, just deal with it. ow I see it. 

We didn't want to just deal with it. If the league or new owner did a name the team competition it would've still been the Browns.

26 minutes ago, -Akronite- said:

 

This is how you'd like things to be, but the NFL specifically designated it otherwise. Obviously it's a philosophical disagreement (franchise v city/fan ownership), so we aren't gonna land on the same page.

 

The Ravens aren't the Browns. The New Browns are also not really the old Browns, but they are the Cleveland Browns nonetheless.

This. Do Cleveland Browns fans from 1964 still consider this the same team? Yes, they do. Do fans that came on board do the same? Yes. Do they all honestly know this is an expansion team and not the same team that Bernie Kosar played for? Yes, we all do. But those fans, myself included, will treat this team as the 1946 original, partially because the league does that too. 

47 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

Now, as an expansion team, the situation is different. Also, nice edit in the bolded. Those records still rightfully belong to the Ravens.

Except the league decided that those records would belong to the team that would play in Cleveland, starting in 1999, rather than having them follow the team that left town. Had the Baltimore Browns played a single down in Baltimore, then the league most likely would have allowed them to keep those records instead of reverting them to the new team in Cleveland in 1999. By right as well as charter, it's the league who decides where records, colors, and emblems reside. Had Cleveland fans not been as loud about keeping those things, we would have been looking at possibly the Cleveland Rockers or some other out there name and some even crazier uniform designs. 

 

[Glover]

The Browns are "tarnishing" the legacy of teams from 70 years ago, and the only people today that even care about those teams are...well...Browns fans. 

 

This seems like a non-issue to me.

[MJWalker45]

8 minutes ago, selby56 said:

The Browns are "tarnishing" the legacy of teams from 70 years ago, and the only people today that even care about those teams are...well...Browns fans. 

 

This seems like a non-issue to me.

They play bad football, they aren't beating up people on the weekends and selling crack out of the parking lot. Plenty of the top teams now were just as bad at some time in their past.