Cleveland Browns Unveil New Uniforms

[IceCap]

56 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

Block numbers have a place. That doesn’t mean they’re the best choice for *every* place.

They probably have a place for a team like the Cleveland Browns, however, who (officially) have the history and longevity to make a simple no-nonsense look like block numbers work. 

 

56 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

I prefer to lead the movement by creating good custom numbers, not by sweeping the challenge under the rug and saying “no one cares about this; generic and forgettable is good enough.”

The problem is that we get stuff like the Bucs and Chargers' fonts. Or the Cardinals "block but not block just because" font. Or the Dolphins' whispy font. 

If every non-block font was a winner? We wouldn't see so much demand for back to basics block. 

 

Speaking of the Bucs' font- I am flabbergasted someone at Nike saw this and went "yes this is acceptable." It's such a clownish look. 

[FormerLurker]

25 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

You've got 70 posts. You have no idea what obnoxious is around here. 

All due respect, my name is accurate. Lurked forever on here. Only thing more obnoxious than the Browns move discussion (again, from 1995) is the stupid gray facemask debate.

 

 

[Glover]

17 minutes ago, FormerLurker said:

All due respect, my name is accurate. Lurked forever on here. Only thing more obnoxious than the Browns move discussion (again, from 1995) is the stupid gray facemask debate.

 

 

If you don’t want Browns relocation and gray facemask debates, I’m afraid you’ve come to the wrong thread. That is roughly 80% of the discussion when the Browns are mentioned on here 

[simtek34]

I don’t wanna enter the Browns war, so I’ll just come here with this, since the last four pages brought this into my mind.

Now imagine an alternate reality where this actually happened. Would there still be expansion to Baltimore and Houston? (assuming the Oilers still move)

[oldschoolvikings]

29 minutes ago, FormerLurker said:

The only thing more obnoxious is the stupid gray facemask debate.

 

 

How DARE you, sir!

[oldschoolvikings]

Here's something I don't get about this Cleveland Browns/expansion team/history and records debate. I completely understand why Browns' fans are so passionate about their team's history and such... It's important to them to feel that continuation, and feel some vindication over something they feel was stolen from them. But why does the other side care so much? If you feel like it's dumb that the NFL is pretending that the Browns are the same franchise they've always been... Um, OK.  So? Seriously, in what way could this possibly affect your life? And can't you see that this "issue" means more to them than it does to you?  Or at least it should... talk about things people need to get over.

[schlim]

2 hours ago, simtek34 said:

 

 

The 'O' in Baltimore doesn't come close to matching the 'O' in Browns.

[AgentColon2]

2 hours ago, simtek34 said:

I don’t wanna enter the Browns war, so I’ll just come here with this, since the last four pages brought this into my mind.

Now imagine an alternate reality where this actually happened. Would there still be expansion to Baltimore and Houston? (assuming the Oilers still move)

I’m slipping further into the wormhole....had this happened we wouldn’t have had to worry about a Baltimore Browns.

[IceCap]

2 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

But why does the other side care so much? If you feel like it's dumb that the NFL is pretending that the Browns are the same franchise they've always been... Um, OK.  So?

Since you asked...

I studied history in school, and I teach it now. The sanctity of the historical record was drilled into me time and time again, as was the instinct to examine past events and suss out bias in the recordings of those events. 

 

So the NFL and Cleveland insisting a team that up and moved, keeping most of its roster intact, isn't the same team as the one that played a year prior strikes me a blatant lie. An exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

It irks me because the past events show us that the 1995 Browns up and moved to Baltimore and changed their name to the Ravens, with only so much turnover as you would expect in a given NFL offseason. 

 

The NFL's official narrative that the Ravens were an expansion team that just so happened to have a roster of former Browns players (along with some Browns staff) is absurd. As is the idea that an expansion team born out of nothing is somehow a continuation of the team that was realistically still continuing operations in Baltimore.

I look at what the official narrative is vs the actual series of events and the official story doesn't line up. Again, it bothers me as someone who was academically trained to both search for bias even in primary documentation and to distrust overarching authorities (governments, parties, other organizations with authority) that promote an official line that doesn't jive with everything else recorded about the event in question. 

 

Now you might say "ok that's important for studying history, but this is football, who cares?"

And hey. That's a good point. I'd just answer that I spend some of my free time on a message board arguing over sock stripes. So I'm already the sort predisposed to having strong opinions on relatively unimportant topics  

[Sec19Row53]

3 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Since you asked...

I studied history in school, and I teach it now. The sanctity of the historical record was drilled into me time and time again, as was the instinct to examine past events and suss out bias in the recordings of those events. 

 

So the NFL and Cleveland insisting a team that up and moved, keeping most of its roster intact, isn't the same team as the one that played a year prior strikes me a blatant lie. An exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

It irks me because the past events show us that the 1995 Browns up and moved to Baltimore and changed their name to the Ravens, with only so much turnover as you would expect in a given NFL offseason. 

 

The NFL's official narrative that the Ravens were an expansion team that just so happened to have a roster of former Browns players (along with some Browns staff) is absurd. As is the idea that an expansion team born out of nothing is somehow a continuation of the team that was realistically still continuing operations in Baltimore.

I look at what the official narrative is vs the actual series of events and the official story doesn't line up. Again, it bothers me as someone who was academically trained to both search for bias even in primary documentation and to distrust overarching authorities (governments, parties, other organizations with authority) that promote an official line that doesn't jive with everything else recorded about the event in question. 

 

Now you might say "ok that's important for studying history, but this is football, who cares?"

And hey. That's a good point. I'd just answer that I spend some of my free time on a message board arguing over sock stripes. So I'm already the sort predisposed to having strong opinions on relatively unimportant topics  

This -- along with many other things -- is why I love this place.

[infrared41]

3 hours ago, FormerLurker said:

All due respect, my name is accurate. Lurked forever on here. Only thing more obnoxious than the Browns move discussion (again, from 1995) is the stupid gray facemask debate.

 

 

 

One would think that with all that time spent lurking you would have developed a better sense of humor and be able to spot a joke. But feel free to continue to with all that attitude. As I'm sure you already know, when it comes to attitude, a little goes a long way around here. A lot just goes away. 

[infrared41]

3 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

3 hours ago, FormerLurker said:

The only thing more obnoxious is the stupid gray facemask debate.

 

 

How DARE you, sir!

 

Indeed. Is nothing sacred around here any more? I suggest pistols at dawn. Tailgating begins at 3am at the city gates. Merchandise will be on sale at all the usual outlets. 

[infrared41]

4 hours ago, SFGiants58 said:

Is it awful for the Avs to skate around as the Nordiques in warm-ups?

 

I think so, but then again, I don't watch a lot of Avs games so I'm probably not the person to ask. 

[infrared41]

4 hours ago, DiePerske said:

Is it possible to Cleve-jack a thread about the browns ?

 

i think we just did. 

 

That's the beauty of these here boards. Just when you think you've seen it all...

[FormerLurker]

3 hours ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

How DARE you, sir!

My friend, I think the debate is stupid, not gray face masks 

[Sykotyk]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

Since you asked...

I studied history in school, and I teach it now. The sanctity of the historical record was drilled into me time and time again, as was the instinct to examine past events and suss out bias in the recordings of those events. 

 

So the NFL and Cleveland insisting a team that up and moved, keeping most of its roster intact, isn't the same team as the one that played a year prior strikes me a blatant lie. An exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

It irks me because the past events show us that the 1995 Browns up and moved to Baltimore and changed their name to the Ravens, with only so much turnover as you would expect in a given NFL offseason. 

 

The NFL's official narrative that the Ravens were an expansion team that just so happened to have a roster of former Browns players (along with some Browns staff) is absurd. As is the idea that an expansion team born out of nothing is somehow a continuation of the team that was realistically still continuing operations in Baltimore.

I look at what the official narrative is vs the actual series of events and the official story doesn't line up. Again, it bothers me as someone who was academically trained to both search for bias even in primary documentation and to distrust overarching authorities (governments, parties, other organizations with authority) that promote an official line that doesn't jive with everything else recorded about the event in question. 

 

Now you might say "ok that's important for studying history, but this is football, who cares?"

And hey. That's a good point. I'd just answer that I spend some of my free time on a message board arguing over sock stripes. So I'm already the sort predisposed to having strong opinions on relatively unimportant topics  

So what about the Colts and Rams then? The owners traded teams. Or the Eagles and Steelers trading teams (seriously, not just the Steagles, read up about the Pennsylvania Keystoners attempt). 

 

The NFL already decided that former NFL championship games are the predecessors of the NFC Championship Game and not the Super Bowl. In fact, the Minnesota Vikings were champions of the NFL once. The Kansas City Chiefs? Nope. Never champions of the NFL. 

 

Why are AFL records NFL records while AAFC records aren't? Why did the NFL retroactively rename the early Super Bowls? 

[guest23]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

Since you asked...

I studied history in school, and I teach it now. The sanctity of the historical record was drilled into me time and time again, as was the instinct to examine past events and suss out bias in the recordings of those events. 

 

So the NFL and Cleveland insisting a team that up and moved, keeping most of its roster intact, isn't the same team as the one that played a year prior strikes me a blatant lie. An exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

It irks me because the past events show us that the 1995 Browns up and moved to Baltimore and changed their name to the Ravens, with only so much turnover as you would expect in a given NFL offseason. 

 

The NFL's official narrative that the Ravens were an expansion team that just so happened to have a roster of former Browns players (along with some Browns staff) is absurd. As is the idea that an expansion team born out of nothing is somehow a continuation of the team that was realistically still continuing operations in Baltimore.

I look at what the official narrative is vs the actual series of events and the official story doesn't line up. Again, it bothers me as someone who was academically trained to both search for bias even in primary documentation and to distrust overarching authorities (governments, parties, other organizations with authority) that promote an official line that doesn't jive with everything else recorded about the event in question. 

 

Now you might say "ok that's important for studying history, but this is football, who cares?"

And hey. That's a good point. I'd just answer that I spend some of my free time on a message board arguing over sock stripes. So I'm already the sort predisposed to having strong opinions on relatively unimportant topics  

 

This x1,000,000...a stable society requires a factual historical record that is backed by empirical evidence. Without such acknowledgement of the historical record and documentation you veer into civil crisis. I find it disturbing that there is a sizeable group that adopts "While the facts tell me otherwise, I consider the ravens to be an expansion franchise and my heart tells me the current nfl browns were founded in the AAFC by St Paul Brown himself."

 

 

[panthers_2012]

6 minutes ago, guest23 said:

the current nfl browns were founded in the AAFC by St Paul Brown himself."

Paul Brown is rolling in his grave seeing what the Browns have become.

[seasaltvanilla]

12 minutes ago, guest23 said:

a stable society requires a factual historical record that is backed by empirical evidence. Without such acknowledgement of the historical record and documentation you veer into civil crisis

 

This is appropriate rhetoric for the discussion at hand. Civil crisis!

[SFGiants58]

29 minutes ago, panthers_2012 said:

Paul Brown is rolling in his grave seeing what the Browns have become.

I think he’s more worried about his failson ruining the club he owned.