Jump to content

Cleveland Browns Unveil New Uniforms


jimsimo

Recommended Posts

The players/staff that went to Baltimore were former Browns players/staff and were transferred over to a new expansion franchise. A lot of cases have been made that this was somehow a-historical or a preposterous farce. But anyone that was around or cares to look at the details of the situation knows what happened and it's not all that complicated. Not sure why it's somehow so distinct from previous team anomalies that have been mentioned to be worthy of this much debate, to be honest. 

 

But it's fun nonetheless!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
9 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 


You’re the one who said that “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.”

 

If that’s true, then the Celtics were founded in 1970.  Because when the owners of the Braves and Celtics trades franchises, they also traded rosters.  The entire Celtics roster (minus the standard offseason departures) up and moved to San Diego.  It would be intellectually dishonest to pretend that the 1978-78 Boston Celtics were the same team that played a year earlier. 
 

The situations are directly analogous.  The Celtics and Braves traded whatever the NBA equivalent of a franchise certificate is.  If that’s okay, then so is leaving a franchise certificate behind for a predetermined dormant period when a team leaves town. 

 

 

 

 I never heard of that.  This is crazy:

 

Quote

"By different regulations between the state of Massachusetts and New York, changing the name of the owner was not a legal option, so they went to the old method. They exchanged rosters, coaching staffs and the name of every franchise. Levin was still the owner of a team with 13 championships but under the name of San Diego Clippers; and John Y. Brown had the new Boston Celtics, formerly known as Buffalo Braves. Players of both teams changed the franchise but not the city. Legally, this is the past of both sides."

 

I'd slap anyone that didn't consider the Celtics the same Celtics as always, just with a new owner.  I'm still not sure what happened here - they couldn't change the name of the owner of the franchise, so the Braves moved to Boston, and the Celtics moved to SD, and they just traded all the players and coaches, and the league changed the names of the teams?  Unnecessarily complicated.

 

http://www.alejandrogaitan.com/celtics-braves-trade/

 

 

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, right?  It’s crazy. But it also debunks the “separate franchises” argument.  
 

The current Celtics are the old Buffalo Braves in every way - from personnel to assets to liabilities right down to the corporate organization.  The only thing they share with the old Celtics are name and logo.  Just like the Browns.
 

The only thing the Celtics left behind when they left Boston in the summer of 1978 was the intellectual property and record book.  Just like the Browns. 
 

And as you say, we’d slap silly (or at least gently mock) anyone who would claim today that Bill Russell and Larry Bird didn’t play for the same team.  Just like the Browns.  😛

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That one just strikes me as different, since there was never an expansion process or an expansion draft involved. Unless you could call it a "disaster draft" after the expansion Baltimore Ravens kidnapped all of the Browns' 1995 roster. Mass kidnapping can produce a disaster draft, right? 😛

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That seems to be reaching juuuuust a little bit to find a distinction, any distinction, between the two. 

 


😛 
 

But let’s not get confused; the question is really quite simple.  A team moves with all its players, staff, assets and debts, leaving only the name, logo, and records behind.  Another organization steps in and assumes the name.  Same team, or no?
 

When were the Celtics founded, anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

FWIW, I was there shortly after its last election cycle and saw first hand the effect that any country's (specifically the US in this case) even implicit acknowledgement of its government has - and it's not good.  It'd be like you could call the Ravens a "team", but they didn't get representation at the owners' meetings, and if you used the word "franchise", all the other teams would hate you, and the new Cleveland Browns would do everything they could to contract the Ravens and absorb their good players

So a relocation back to Cleveland then 😛

 

11 hours ago, crosfam said:

For the Brown's, I hope there is not a color change and do not expect one. Same helmet and cleaned up look Would be fine. Hoping same for Pats too. 

I hold the unpopular opinion (well I think it's unpopular?) that the shades of brown and orange were perfect before the last change. 

I've seen some people suggest that the brown is too dark, and I've seen others say that the old orange was too washed out. I disagree. I think the two shades complimented each other perfectly and that the newer, more vibrant orange is too intense/bright. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

I know, right?  It’s crazy. But it also debunks the “separate franchises” argument.  
 

The current Celtics are the old Buffalo Braves in every way - from personnel to assets to liabilities right down to the corporate organization.  The only thing they share with the old Celtics are name and logo.  Just like the Browns.
 

The only thing the Celtics left behind when they left Boston in the summer of 1978 was the intellectual property and record book.  Just like the Browns. 
 

And as you say, we’d slap silly (or at least gently mock) anyone who would claim today that Bill Russell and Larry Bird didn’t play for the same team.  Just like the Browns.  😛

 

Game, set, match to Gothamite.

 

Can we move on now? Please? 

 

 

 

BB52Big.jpg

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

I understand wanting to separate the first and second incarnation of the Browns. One can make the case that Baker Mayfield isn’t playing for Jim Brown’s old club. But that argument can’t be intellectually consistent unless we’re also willing to say that Bill Russell and Larry Bird didn't play for the same team, either. 

So the the Celtics were founded in 1978 🤷‍♂️

 

And I don't place much of an emphasis on the "franchise certificate" side of things when they are used to tell me the things that I can easily confirm happened didn't happen. 

The Ravens were the old Browns. There was no expansion draft. The new Browns that began play three years later were born of nothing and even participated in an expansion draft. That Modell left a symbolic piece of paper in Cleveland doesn't negate the above easily verified historical facts. 

 

Now if the Celtics and Braves situation really did amount to a complete organizational swap? Then yeah, the Celtics were founded in 1978. Or at the very least their pre-1978 history is that of the Buffalo Braves. 

 

The reason I see it as not entirely analogous to the Browns/Ravens situation is that, at the very least, there was a continuity of there being a Boston Celtics team around. The Browns ceased to exist as a NFL franchise for three years, and were an entirely new franchise upon "returning." 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I hold the unpopular opinion (well I think it's unpopular?) that the shades of brown and orange were perfect before the last change. 

I've seen some people suggest that the brown is too dark, and I've seen others say that the old orange was too washed out. I disagree. I think the two shades complimented each other perfectly and that the newer, more vibrant orange is too intense/bright. 

 

Depends on where you are. Where I am that is a very popular opinion. 

 

BB52Big.jpg

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ice_Cap said:

The reason I see it as not entirely analogous to the Browns/Ravens situation is that, at the very least, there was a continuity of there being a Boston Celtics team around. The Browns ceased to exist as a NFL franchise for three years, and were an entirely new franchise upon "returning." 

 

If I had a dollar for every team in the history of professional sports that's shut down only to come back a few years later I'd have...well...probably about 25 bucks. That being said, the Browns are hardly the first team to have a continuity gap. Somewhere around here someone posted a video about the history of NFL franchises. I can't remember all the details, but I'm reasonably sure there were quite a few teams who did the Browns/Ravens thing back in the NFL's formative years. I know that NFL history didn't start until Super Bowl I, but something was going on before January of 1967. 

 

BB52Big.jpg

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

If I had a dollar for every team in the history of professional sports that's shut down only to come back a few years later I'd have...well...probably about 25 bucks. That being said, the Browns are hardly the first team to have a continuity gap. Somewhere around here someone posted a video about the history of NFL franchises. I can't remember all the details, but I'm reasonably sure there were quite a few teams who did the Browns/Ravens thing back in the NFL's formative years. I know that NFL history didn't start until Super Bowl I, but something was going on before January of 1967. 

That's true, but a lot of those shutdowns happened during the Second World War. And I find paving over those gaps far easier to justify than the Browns' gap, which was the result of what would otherwise have been a standard relocation scenario.

 

I don't know this for sure, it seems possible that the 1999 Baltimore Ravens had enough holdovers from the 1995 Browns (players, front office, ownership) that you could say some form of the last Browns roster was still together and playing as the Ravens when the new Browns "returned" with an original roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@infrared41 @Gothamite @oldschoolvikings

 

To be clear- I don't think the NFL ought to revise the records again. Suddenly admitting the 1999 expansion Browns aren't the historic Browns would do more to distort the record books at this point. The Browns are staying the Browns. I know that, I accept that. 

 

I still find it remarkably silly and a bit dishonest though 😛

Anyway I'm getting to the point where I'm repeating myself so I'll bow out of this for the time being. I was asked why I care, I answered. I hope I was able to explain myself in a satisfactory way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, colortv said:

The Dolphins showing everyone how to do orange right..

 

 

Cleveland's previous orange jerseys matched this look as well. It was the first time they had drop shadow numbers in a while but it worked pretty well. Then the current design changed it to an upward shadow which isn't as good a design for jerseys.

km3S7lo.jpg

 

Zqy6osx.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

Game, set, match to Gothamite.

 

Can we move on now? Please? 

 

 

 

I don't know if they moved the used jockstraps from Cleveland to Baltimore but I would certainly like new info about the 2020 Browns uniforms...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jp1409 said:

I don't know if they moved the used jockstraps from Cleveland to Baltimore but I would certainly like new info about the 2020 Browns uniforms...


And when there is some, this is where you’ll find it.

 

Until then, our conversation will continue to meander.  At least we’re staying mostly on topic. 😛

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jp1409 said:

I don't know if they moved the used jockstraps from Cleveland to Baltimore...

Probably. I heard Vinny Testaverde was very particular about that 😛

 

12 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Until then, our conversation will continue to meander.  At least we’re staying mostly on topic. 😛

Exactly. There's nothing to discuss at the moment, short of another announcement from the team or a leak. 

So general Browns talk it is!

 

We've gone multiple pages on the history. Next up? Grey vs white vs brown facemasks. Begin! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Probably. I heard Vinny Testaverde was very particular about that 😛

 

Exactly. There's nothing to discuss at the moment, short of another announcement from the team or a leak. 

So general Browns talk it is!

 

We've gone multiple pages on the history. Next up? Grey vs white vs brown facemasks. Begin! 

Grey? White? Brown? Why the bias against Orange? I mean it wouldn’t have made their current uniform look any worse. 
 

(Yes, I’m kidding).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.