New Browns Unis

[STL FANATIC]

No, what they had was a good update. Instead they took away all of the things that made the update better than the original and now it looks really bad.

[nwtrailtrekker]

looks good - minus the non-striped socks... still, upgrade - that brown, orange, brown stripe on the pants never looked right to me.

ick. dont like the pants. dont like the helmet. ick.

[In 5..4..3..2..1]

This coming from a fan of Seahawk monochrome blue disgracing the Superbowl. Ick.

[random_ax]

I hope the lions ditch the black, the steelers ditch the italics and the chargers go to powder blue full time.

as we all do my friend

I'm afraid I can't agree....I reallylike the black accent the Lions adopted a few years ago but I do agree the Chargers should go back to collegiate blue.

[random_ax]

Now this is waht i think. Remove the 60 patch and thats one sweet ass lookin uni.

How about the Brownie patch for the shoulder? You have to be really macho to wear a pixie logo.

http://www.logoserver.com/football/ClevelandBrowns50.GIF

[andrewharrington]

While it's not that great from a design perspective, not one person can deny that every part of that uniform epitomizes old-school football, save the sleeve length of course.

[STL FANATIC]

While it's not that great from a design perspective, not one person can deny that every part of that uniform epitomizes old-school football, save the sleeve length of course.

But didn't the old, well-designed version do that as well?

You certainly can't count the facemasks, because then you get into technological changes.

And just to play devils advocate, they probably should have removed the "BROWNS" from underneath the collar if that was their goal. (That said, I like the script there...just don't like much else.)

[BBM]

Few things:

1. That "60 years" patch... not only is it inaccurate (as we all know), but it is HIDEOUSLY UGLY and too big.

2. Anyone have a picture from a player's left side to see if the "AL" patch is still there?

3. I like the gray facemasks. And black cleats for that matter.

[John in KY]

2. Anyone have a picture from a player's left side to see if the "AL" patch is still there?

The AL patch is still there; you can see it in this picture from the first page of this thread:

[andrewharrington]

While it's not that great from a design perspective, not one person can deny that every part of that uniform epitomizes old-school football, save the sleeve length of course.

But didn't the old, well-designed version do that as well?

You certainly can't count the facemasks, because then you get into technological changes.

And just to play devils advocate, they probably should have removed the "BROWNS" from underneath the collar if that was their goal. (That said, I like the script there...just don't like much else.)

Well, I didn't think the old one was that well designed, either. They had the separated stripes on the sleeves of the brown jersey, and all the other stripes ran next to each other with no space. That always bugged me the most. But no, that one did not look as old as this one does, simply because this one has more design elements from the past, like, yes, the facemask, the stripes on the sleeves and pants, and the black shoes. They could still do striped socks, and I'm a big orange pants advocate, just not for every game. I liked the 70s look as much as I liked the 60s look they have tried to replicate here.

[Thunderstruk]

Well watching the game on tv the tops really reminded me of the bengals 70's uniforms. They seemed very dark.

[iowahoo]

1. That "60 years" patch... not only is it inaccurate (as we all know), but it is HIDEOUSLY UGLY and too big.

Can you explain to me how that is innacurate? It is 60 years from when the first team took the field.

The patch doesn't say "60 Continuous Years of Browns Football" It is simply commemorating that has been 60 years since the Cleveland Browns were founded.

[BBM]

1. That "60 years" patch... not only is it inaccurate (as we all know), but it is HIDEOUSLY UGLY and too big.

Can you explain to me how that is innacurate? It is 60 years from when the first team took the field.

The patch doesn't say "60 Continuous Years of Browns Football" It is simply commemorating that has been 60 years since the Cleveland Browns were founded.

Because this Browns franchise was founded 7 years ago!! As much as Cleveland and the NFL HATE to admit it, this Cleveland Browns franchise, even though it "borrowed" the other team's history, is an expansion team. It's not like they suspended operation for 3 years; then it would be ok.

So what are they celebrating? The fact that NFL football began in Cleveland 60 years ago? Well, that's not true either! For their first 3 years of existence, they were in the AAFC with the 49ers (and now defunct Baltimore Colts).

So they are celebrating the past of a franchise they really aren't. In a year when they didn't even enter the NFL. It's one thing, that for the record books sake they claim this Cleveland Browns franchise is the same as the last one. Ok, fine. But they continually try to over-compensate for losing that team, by doing things like put AL LERNER'S memorial patch on the side, even though he was one of the main proponents for them to leave in the first place (yet he was principle owner of the new expansion club), and putting something like this patch on their jersey.

I mean honestly. 60 years isn't even a big anniversary. They just can't get over the fact Modell moved the team to Baltimore. Worse yet, won the Super Bowl a few years later.

[infrared41]

1. That "60 years" patch... not only is it inaccurate (as we all know), but it is HIDEOUSLY UGLY and too big.

Can you explain to me how that is innacurate? It is 60 years from when the first team took the field.

The patch doesn't say "60 Continuous Years of Browns Football" It is simply commemorating that has been 60 years since the Cleveland Browns were founded.

Because this Browns franchise was founded 7 years ago!! As much as Cleveland and the NFL HATE to admit it, this Cleveland Browns franchise, even though it "borrowed" the other team's history, is an expansion team. It's not like they suspended operation for 3 years; then it would be ok.

So what are they celebrating? The fact that NFL football began in Cleveland 60 years ago? Well, that's not true either! For their first 3 years of existence, they were in the AAFC with the 49ers (and now defunct Baltimore Colts).

So they are celebrating the past of a franchise they really aren't. In a year when they didn't even enter the NFL. It's one thing, that for the record books sake they claim this Cleveland Browns franchise is the same as the last one. Ok, fine. But they continually try to over-compensate for losing that team, by doing things like put AL LERNER'S memorial patch on the side, even though he was one of the main proponents for them to leave in the first place (yet he was principle owner of the new expansion club), and putting something like this patch on their jersey.

I mean honestly. 60 years isn't even a big anniversary. They just can't get over the fact Modell moved the team to Baltimore. Worse yet, won the Super Bowl a few years later.

Wow, all that over a silly patch?

Maybe I can help explain what happened. The Browns never ceased to exist. When Modell left part of the agreement (in court as I recall) was to leave the colors, name and history of the Browns with Cleveland. So technically the Browns simply ceased operations for three years. The Ravens should be seen more as something similar to (but not exactly like) an expansion team. They are not and have never officially been the "original Cleveland Browns." They are simply The Baltimore Ravens. Yeah we all know otherwise but this was the agreement between Modell, Cleveland, and The NFL.

I think the best comparison I can make to the three years after Modell moved would be to liken it to when Houston was awarded the Texans. Even though they didn't exist on the field they still existed. They must have because I bought a Texans sweatshirt long before they ever took the field for the first time.

I think the patch on the Browns jerseys is simply celebrating 60 years of The Cleveland Browns as a functioning team, then as a "franchise" (like the Texans), then as a functioning team again. Yeah it's pretty silly but the Browns' logic behind the patch is still pretty clear and based on the agreement with Modell and The NFL it's also legit.

The whole thing could have been avoided if we'd just built a new Browns stadium instead of that ridiculous joke on the lake front better known as "The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame."

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Oh and for the record I like the new unis but the striped socks would have really topped them off nicely.

[Gothamite]

Because this Browns franchise was founded 7 years ago!!

No, it wasn't.

The new Browns own the records of the old Browns. That means that they are a continuation of the old team with an interruption, not a new team.

[BBM]

Because this Browns franchise was founded 7 years ago!!

No, it wasn't.

The new Browns own the records of the old Browns. That means that they are a continuation of the old team with an interruption, not a new team.

Ok, I was probably too harsh on the Brownies. But even though this is "officially" the same franchise, it's not. In the early years of the NFL, some teams literally suspended operations for a few years due to fiscal contraints. Then, they'd come back. THAT is an intrerruption. This isn't quite the same deal. I know it's the same franchise, name, colors, etc. in every official document. But they WERE an expansion team. There was an expansion draft to get players. That's my only point.

[oldschoolvikings]

QUOTE (BigEd76 @ Friday, August 11th, 2006 - 01:19:21)

I know this is going to make me sound like a dog but...

...Nice cheerleader!

There I said it

WOOF! 

   

I was at the Hall of Fame game last weekend, and Philly brought their cheerleaders there also. Umm... *ahem*... let's just say...

attactive.

[Gothamite]

Because this Browns franchise was founded 7 years ago!!

No, it wasn't.

The new Browns own the records of the old Browns. That means that they are a continuation of the old team with an interruption, not a new team.

Ok, I was probably too harsh on the Brownies. But even though this is "officially" the same franchise, it's not. In the early years of the NFL, some teams literally suspended operations for a few years due to fiscal contraints. Then, they'd come back. THAT is an intrerruption. This isn't quite the same deal. I know it's the same franchise, name, colors, etc. in every official document. But they WERE an expansion team. There was an expansion draft to get players. That's my only point.

I think you're arguing semantics.

Regardless, they do have a claim on the 60 years on their patch. Not 60 seasons, but 60 years.

[Mac the Knife]

Because this Browns franchise was founded 7 years ago!! As much as Cleveland and the NFL HATE to admit it, this Cleveland Browns franchise, even though it "borrowed" the other team's history, is an expansion team. It's not like they suspended operation for 3 years; then it would be ok.

So what are they celebrating? The fact that NFL football began in Cleveland 60 years ago? Well, that's not true either! For their first 3 years of existence, they were in the AAFC with the 49ers (and now defunct Baltimore Colts).

So they are celebrating the past of a franchise they really aren't. In a year when they didn't even enter the NFL. It's one thing, that for the record books sake they claim this Cleveland Browns franchise is the same as the last one. Ok, fine. But they continually try to over-compensate for losing that team, by doing things like put AL LERNER'S memorial patch on the side, even though he was one of the main proponents for them to leave in the first place (yet he was principle owner of the new expansion club), and putting something like this patch on their jersey.

I mean honestly. 60 years isn't even a big anniversary. They just can't get over the fact Modell moved the team to Baltimore. Worse yet, won the Super Bowl a few years later.

It's a matter of semantics. Technically speaking, that asshat Modell was awarded a new franchise for Baltimore. The Browns operations were suspended. We all realize the Ravens are the de-facto original Browns though - its the NFL's equivalent of Grover Cleveland in a sense.

The Cleveland Browns were founded in 1946 as part of the AAFC, a league that today isn't given much credence but at the time was every bit as strong, both on the field and off, as the now-mighty NFL. Few remember that the AAFC was founded in the wake of World War II, when a large number of pro-level players (both former NFL standouts and collegiate stars) were coming out of the military. The AAFC and NFL scooped up those they could, but the AAFC did a far better job primarily because they had more roster spots to fill. By 1948, many football writers were calling the AAFC the better league - and the Cleveland Browns the best team in pro football, period... a fact they punctuated by being the first team to go undefeated (sorry, '72 Dolphin fans, you're the first NFL team to do it, but not the first pro team).

I agree that having Al Lerner's initials on the sleeve is a joke. The first owner of the team outside the Lerner family (his kid now controls the team) hopefully will correct this.

60 years is a big anniversary, but admittedly it doesn't have the ring that 50 or 75 have... but the Browns didn't have the chance to do a 50-year anniversary back in 1996, so no harm done. If I live to be 60, I'll have one helluva party to celebrate it.

And finally, Browns fans got over the move around the time the new team took the field in 1999. They have nothing against Baltimore as a city, or Ravens fans for that matter, but they'll never forgive Modell, and some of us dream of the day we can piss on his grave.

[whitedawg22]

Techinally, the patch should say 57*.

If they did that, they could come out with this patch for the 2010 season: