Cleveland Browns Unveil New Uniforms

[PaleVermilion81]

It's also a white facemask.

[andrewharrington]

On 1/10/2020 at 2:55 PM, SFGiants58 said:

That’s the most backwards statement here. Should the LA Dodgers not honor their Brooklyn players? Should the Lakers pretend George Mikan never existed? Is it awful for the Avs to skate around as the Nordiques in warm-ups? Would it be better if the Hurricanes ignored the Whalers (sadly, it’s their best-looking outfit)? 

 

Franchise continuity isn’t popular with you, I take it.

I used to think the records should remain in the city, but after about a decade, I relented. I now think it makes the most sense for the records to be attached to the brands. It’s not a perfect solution (there really isn’t one), but to me, it strikes the best balance of leaving records and memories to the people they mattered to and respecting those nomadic brands that stayed intact through relocations and have legitimate claims to more than one city.

 

So, to answer your specific questions:

 

I absolutely think the Dodgers should celebrate their Brooklyn history and players. I also think the Raiders should celebrate their Oakland and LA histories, the Rams should celebrate their St. Louis and Cleveland histories, the Baltimore Colts’ records should stick with the Colts in Indy, the Cleveland Browns’ records should stick with the Browns, and the Ravens should have their own record book and history, etc.

 

I think the Lakers can decide for themselves whether they want to celebrate George Mikan. I don’t think it matters much to people in LA. I do, however, think it’s kinda silly for them to wear MPLS throwbacks. I also think it will be a little silly when the LA Rams inevitably wear a St. Louis Rams throwback, though that’s an interesting case since they both moved away from and back to LA.

 

I couldn’t care less if those teams want to do that, but without a doubt, there are many people who think it’s awful and in poor taste for the Avs and Canes to dress up like the Nordiques and Whalers, and I think that’s a very reasonable opinion. I also think it was silly that the Wild had to get permission from Dallas for *actual Minnesota North Stars players* to wear North Stars jerseys in the alumni game prior to Stadium Series.

 

On 1/10/2020 at 3:15 PM, infrared41 said:

 

In other words, one of a kind. As I said before, "more unique" may as well be "more one of a kind." I'm not budging on this and you're straight up wrong so let's drop it. OK? 

That’s fine, but when the other definitions of the word unique are “distinctively characteristic of...” or “able to be distinguished from all others...” then “more unique” simply means “more distinctively characteristic of...” or “more able to be distinguished from all others...”

 

According to the authority on the subject, there are at least three definitions for this word, and two of them are not “one of a kind.”

 

An example: it’s common knowledge that all snowflakes are unique. Despite being “unique,” however, they are very difficult to tell apart from one another, so something like a black snowflake could very accurately be described as “more unique” since it would theoretically be “more able to be distinguished from all others in its class or type” due to the simple fact that is is a black snowflake amongst billions of white ones.

 

On 1/10/2020 at 3:33 PM, IceCap said:

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. 

 

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. 

Yes, the Browns’ brand is a textbook place where block numbers work very well. I don’t believe I indicated otherwise.

 

I fully understand most new custom fonts are overdone, ill-fitting, and/or irrelevant to the brand’s visual messaging, but to me, the solution is not defaulting to something completely generic (that’s probably also not a great fit for the brand). The solution is to do a better job executing the task, or hire the people that will.

 

—

 

Sorry if any of those topics are off limits. I just don’t have time to read through ten pages of updates right now.

[infrared41]

20 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

On 1/10/2020 at 6:15 PM, infrared41 said:

 

In other words, one of a kind. As I said before, "more unique" may as well be "more one of a kind." I'm not budging on this and you're straight up wrong so let's drop it. OK? 

That’s fine, but when the other definitions of the word unique are “distinctively characteristic of...” or “able to be distinguished from all others...” then “more unique” simply means “more distinctively characteristic of...” or “more able to be distinguished from all others...”

 

According to the authority on the subject, there are at least three definitions for this word, and two of them are not “one of a kind.”

 

An example: it’s common knowledge that all snowflakes are unique. Despite being “unique,” however, they are very difficult to tell apart from one another, so something like a black snowflake could very accurately be described as “more unique” since it would theoretically be “more able to be distinguished from all others in its class or type” due to the simple fact that is is a black snowflake amongst billions of white ones.

 

Honestly, I'd totally forgotten we had this exchange. This argument is well past its "best by date." Anyway, since you still feel strongly about this 12 days later - which I find hilarious, by the way - let's try this again. First off, (here we go again) your use of theoretically is incorrect. What you should have said is hypothetically. But I'm willing to let that one slide because I misuse theoretically all the time myself. So, let's get to the matter at hand.

 

"Distinctively characteristic of" or "Able to be distinguished from all others." How is that in any way different from what I'm saying? Something can't be a degree of those things. It either is or it isn't. Do you honestly believe that the following statement makes any sense at all? This (insert thing here) is able to be distinguished from all others, but this (insert another thing here) is really able to be distinguished from all others. Call me crazy, but a thing can only be "distinguished from all others" in one way. It can't be more distinguished from all others than another thing that is distinguished from all others. You can change that to "distinctly characteristic of..." and it will still sound every bit as silly. Speaking of which...

 

(Unintentional comedy alert) A black snowflake is unique because it's black. It's not "more unique" than a white snowflake. It's simply unique on its own merit. A black snowflake (again, hilarious) is able to be distinguished from all others because, like every other snowflake, even black ones, it is one of a kind. Being the only black snowflake amongst billions of white ones (Seriously, did you realize how funny this would sound when you wrote it?) isn't "more unique", it's just a different color. So, the black snowflake could be unique for two reasons - 1. Because it's black. 2. Because, like every snowflake, it can be "distinguished from all others." The fact that we can't see the difference between every snowflake doesn't change the fact that each one is different. To state otherwise is like stating that when viewed from a blimp, there is no discernible difference between the uniforms of the Edmonton Eskimos and the Green Bay Packers. Granted, when viewed from a blimp, it may seem like those two uniforms are so similar that we can't tell the difference, but we know for a fact that they are different. It's the same with snowflakes. Even black ones. 

 

Now can we please drop this? You're still wrong and I'm still not budging on this. 

[Faxion]

Would the Browns ever entertain the idea of a logo on the helmet? Or is the mere suggestion sacrilege?

 

Here is a design I posted in the Concepts thread.

 

[Glover]

1 hour ago, Faxion said:

Would the Browns ever entertain the idea of a logo on the helmet? Or is the mere suggestion sacrilege?

 

Here is a design I posted in the Concepts thread.

 

I love the idea to have this logo on score bugs, merchandise, and around the stadium. Do not want it on the helmet though. 

[BBTV]

What if it was worked into the stripe, but at the front? So right above the bumper, you’d have a “C” in white, outlined with brown - maybe slightly wider than the stripe - and then continue the stripe like it is today?

[andrewharrington]

14 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

Honestly, I'd totally forgotten we had this exchange. This argument is well past its "best by date." Anyway, since you still feel strongly about this 12 days later - which I find hilarious, by the way - let's try this again. First off, (here we go again) your use of theoretically is incorrect. What you should have said is hypothetically. But I'm willing to let that one slide because I misuse theoretically all the time myself. So, let's get to the matter at hand.

 

"Distinctively characteristic of" or "Able to be distinguished from all others." How is that in any way different from what I'm saying? Something can't be a degree of those things. It either is or it isn't. Do you honestly believe that the following statement makes any sense at all? This (insert thing here) is able to be distinguished from all others, but this (insert another thing here) is really able to be distinguished from all others. Call me crazy, but a thing can only be "distinguished from all others" in one way. It can't be more distinguished from all others than another thing that is distinguished from all others. You can change that to "distinctly characteristic of..." and it will still sound every bit as silly. Speaking of which...

 

(Unintentional comedy alert) A black snowflake is unique because it's black. It's not "more unique" than a white snowflake. It's simply unique on its own merit. A black snowflake (again, hilarious) is able to be distinguished from all others because, like every other snowflake, even black ones, it is one of a kind. Being the only black snowflake amongst billions of white ones (Seriously, did you realize how funny this would sound when you wrote it?) isn't "more unique", it's just a different color. So, the black snowflake could be unique for two reasons - 1. Because it's black. 2. Because, like every snowflake, it can be "distinguished from all others." The fact that we can't see the difference between every snowflake doesn't change the fact that each one is different. To state otherwise is like stating that when viewed from a blimp, there is no discernible difference between the uniforms of the Edmonton Eskimos and the Green Bay Packers. Granted, when viewed from a blimp, it may seem like those two uniforms are so similar that we can't tell the difference, but we know for a fact that they are different. It's the same with snowflakes. Even black ones. 

 

Now can we please drop this? You're still wrong and I'm still not budging on this. 

I hadn’t checked on the thread in two weeks, so it was the first thing that popped up when I opened it. My apologies.
 

Anyway...

 

Able to be distinguished *from all others of its type or class.*

 

Those words you conveniently left out of the definition make all the difference, my friend (particularly with regard to the... hypothetical snowflake example).

 

It may not not be the classical definition (or the original intent of the word), but in 2020, we live in a world of linguistic exaggeration where definitions are stretched repeatedly over time, and the accepted definition of unique is just more broad than it used to be, according to M-W.

 

And with that, I’m out.
 

EDIT: I wish I would have found this before:

 

Merriam-Webster’s take on the subject...

[BBTV]

in a world where Some people say “over exaggerated”, “more unique” is fine. 
 

 

[raz]

31 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

in a world where Some people say “over exaggerated”, “more unique” is fine. 

 

It's used. It's common. It's redundant as hell.

 

But that's how language morphs. I'm an editor and I argue with my daughter, a linguist, all the time about things like these!!

[TBGKon]

2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

What if it was worked into the stripe, but at the front? So right above the bumper, you’d have a “C” in white, outlined with brown - maybe slightly wider than the stripe - and then continue the stripe like it is today?

I like this direction of thought.  I truly believe the Browns dont need a helmet logo, but their official logo should be something other than a blank orange helmet.

[andrewharrington]

7 hours ago, Faxion said:

Would the Browns ever entertain the idea of a logo on the helmet? Or is the mere suggestion sacrilege?

 

Here is a design I posted in the Concepts thread.

 

Never on the helmet, but they need something *other than a helmet* for merchandise, media, etc. The logo cant just be a stock helmet illustration.

 

I never understood why the mgmt. insisted on addressing the entire design toolbox except for the one piece that most needed to be addressed. All that time and manpower on new colors, a new uniform design, new typography, and a new secondary logo, but they still have a dated piece of clipart masquerading as a primary team logo.

 

What you’ve done here is a nice monogram, but I think it’s maybe a step too flashy for the Browns’ brand. A more traditional B without the anglular intersection in the center would help, and honestly, I don’t think you need the stripes to be a part of the logo. They don’t add much, and having an extreme horizontal footprint like that hurts the logo’s flexibility in the long run. If you’re going to do something like that, make sure the reward is worth the sacrifice.

[colortv]

9 hours ago, Faxion said:

Would the Browns ever entertain the idea of a logo on the helmet? Or is the mere suggestion sacrilege?

 

Here is a design I posted in the Concepts thread.

 

 

 

Really hope they introduce a new logo with some variation of this, regardless of whether there is anything on the actual helmet:

 

 

 

[chakfu]

11 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

in a world where Some people say “over exaggerated”, “more unique” is fine. 
 

 

 

Don't see the problem with over exaggerated as opposed to exaggerated to lesser, more acceptable extent!

[Faxion]

22 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

What if it was worked into the stripe, but at the front? So right above the bumper, you’d have a “C” in white, outlined with brown - maybe slightly wider than the stripe - and then continue the stripe like it is today?

[PaleVermilion81]

So basically moving the problem with the current pants to the helmet.

[CS85]

14 hours ago, colortv said:

 

 

 

I hate this template.  The half-sleeve is never, ever used, and shouldn't be a part of the design, but a lot of the concepts that use this template (which are generally bad) go ape using the sleeves as a mandatory design feature.

 

As for this particular idea, the stripe, Northwestern has pulled it off reasonably well.

 

In promo materials:

 

 

In execution:

 

 

 

Nobody's wearing the sleeves.  Stop using the template.

[infrared41]

21 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

It may not not be the classical definition (or the original intent of the word), but in 2020, we live in a world of linguistic exaggeration where definitions are stretched repeatedly over time, and the accepted definition of unique is just more broad than it used to be, according to M-W.

 

If you had said that from the start, I would have agreed and our debate would have ended at that moment. It's like how literally has basically become figuratively which, as someone said on a TV show somewhere, leaves us with no word to use when we mean literally. Using literally when you mean figuratively is accepted, but it's still incorrect. Using "really unique" when you mean to say something like "damn, that number font is so ugly that I can't come up with a word to describe it" may be accepted too, but it's still incorrect. M-W needs to stick to their guns and stop this nonsense - just like you need to lead the charge to stop bad number fonts. How about that? We went full circle back to the number fonts with this. Around here, that's literally incredibly unique and dare I say it, almost really historic. 

[MJWalker45]

52 minutes ago, Faxion said:

I'd place that at the back and have the helmet stripe go all the way from front to back, no break to show off the logo. And I'd shrink it a tiny bit to fit completely in the stripe. 

[andrewharrington]

7 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

If you had said that from the start, I would have agreed and our debate would have ended at that moment. It's like how literally has basically become figuratively which, as someone said on a TV show somewhere, leaves us with no word to use when we mean literally. Using literally when you mean figuratively is accepted, but it's still incorrect. Using "really unique" when you mean to say something like "damn, that number font is so ugly that I can't come up with a word to describe it" may be accepted too, but it's still incorrect. M-W needs to stick to their guns and stop this nonsense - just like you need to lead the charge to stop bad number fonts. How about that? We went full circle back to the number fonts with this. Around here, that's literally incredibly unique and dare I say it, almost really historic. 

 

Sigh. The first thing I did was cite the newer, more expansive definitions of the word. That was *literally* the base of my argument the entire time. Anyway. I don’t want to go there, so let’s do something more fun and on topic while we wait for the Browns to disappoint us yet again.

 

1. Find me a terrible number set and I’ll fix it.

 

or

 

2. Give me a team and/or foundational brand message (real or imaginary), and I’ll figure out a way to communicate it through type.

[WBeltz]

8 hours ago, CS85 said:

 

I hate this template.  The half-sleeve is never, ever used, and shouldn't be a part of the design, but a lot of the concepts that use this template (which are generally bad) go ape using the sleeves as a mandatory design feature.

 

As for this particular idea, the stripe, Northwestern has pulled it off reasonably well.

 

In promo materials:

 

 

In execution:

 

 

 

Nobody's wearing the sleeves.  Stop using the template.

Personally the black stripes on the purple should be moved to the sleeves, you can't see it very well as is.