Rating the AFC Helmets

[Joshawaggie]

Nick, Seattle is in the NFC now. Not sure if you got that memo in 2002.

[Nick 1733]

Nick, Seattle is in the NFC now. Not sure if you got that memo in 2002.

Haha, yes, I know... I'm used to alphabetizing them entirely, not just per conference.

[HatManTC]

I'll go ahead and give the Browns an "F" (especially since tradition isn't a consideration.) If an expansion team came into the NFL today and had a plain helmet, people would be up in arms.

Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Boston College, Army, Navy, Penn State, Alabama... all teams without a logo on their helmets yet it doesn't seem to be nearly as big a deal as the Browns not having a logo on their helmet.

I am curious to hear the answers to this question, why does a football team have to have a logo on it's helmet? For everyone who bitches about the Browns helmet I am curious, why exactly is a logo necessary? I'm sure that all the detractors must have a great explanation for why a Browns helmet is such an affront to all that is sacred in sports attire.

While we're pondering the logo question...

I've always wondered the same thing. I(the homer that am) think that the Browns logo is fine the way it is. now if it was a white shell(yeah I know PSU) or an other color that wasn't so bright, maybe I could see the need for a logo. but the bright orange looks great by its later

[dfwabel]

wow, i want to go to your school NO C's, D's or F's.

As Russel from "Fat Albert" used to say...No Class, Help us all out.

[infrared41]

I am curious to hear the answers to this question, why does a football team have to have a logo on it's helmet? For everyone who bitches about the Browns helmet I am curious, why exactly is a logo necessary? I'm sure that all the detractors must have a great explanation for why a Browns helmet is such an affront to all that is sacred in sports attire.

Wow. It got awfully quiet in here. Anyone?

[random_ax]

I am curious to hear the answers to this question, why does a football team have to have a logo on it's helmet? For everyone who bitches about the Browns helmet I am curious, why exactly is a logo necessary? I'm sure that all the detractors must have a great explanation for why a Browns helmet is such an affront to all that is sacred in sports attire.

Wow. It got awfully quiet in here. Anyone?

I think people fault the Browns helmet because in this day and age, teams go to great lengths to desing and market logos.The NFL even put pressure on the franchise not to come back as the Browns or at least design a logo. I can appreciate the Browns lack of logo. I know the back story of how they ended up with the orange helmets etc.

And let's face it, if there never had been a Cleveland Brown before 2008, chances are you'd be looking at a Cleveland Cougars or Cleveland Condors team rather than a team that can only use an elf as a logo. Me, I love the brwonie elf and wouldn't mind seeing it used on their sleeves.

[tBBP]

Let me throw my two pennies into the Cleveland Browns penny jar for a sec...

...I think a good reason why the Cleveland Browns get so much flak over the lack of a logo on their helmet is directly tied into sports branding--that is to say, pretty much every other major pro sports team out there has some type of readily identifiable logo, or logo package. The primary visual reference for any football team's identity is their helmet, and Cleveland's helmets are, well, blank. Now yes, as we all know, that helmet pretty much, for all intents and purposes, IS their logo/identity brand, and yes it's directly spidered into their illustrious history, dating back for decades. But see, many people don't care to look back that far and try to understand all these factors and instead see a blank-ass helmet and be like "what the hell is that supposed to be?". I don't think it helps matters that the Browns do actually have three different logos that they employ or have employed from time to time--one being Brownie the Elf, the other being the oblong-enclosed "B" logo--and then there is the Dawg Head logo (which actually was created more for the fans than for the team itself, if I remember my research correctly). I think most people think that any of those should probably be used on the helmet as a primary mark (I myself used to be in that camp before I realized it was a futile fight in my mind and just agreed to digress, live and let die on that matter), if for no better reason than to at least give the networks that display scores something other than a solid orange block of color to use for the team logo icon on the scoreboards . Okay that was a joke...but yeah, to wrap all this up, I think most of the flak the Browns catch behind the helmets being logoless has to do with branding/identity, and the belief in most people's mind, to wrap it in a nutshell, that no logo = no identity.

(Of course, we in this community know that the Browns' blank orange helmet with the brown/white/brown stripe IS their identity. Reminds me of a quote I saw somewhere that pretty much quantifies that point--I don't remember it verbatim, but goes something like this:

"Someone could place a Cleveland Browns helmet on the 50-yard line at Paul Brown stadium...and 50,000 people would show up to stare at it.")

[infrared41]

I think people fault the Browns helmet because in this day and age, teams go to great lengths to desing and market logos.The NFL even put pressure on the franchise not to come back as the Browns or at least design a logo. I can appreciate the Browns lack of logo. I know the back story of how they ended up with the orange helmets etc.

But see, many people don't care to look back that far and try to understand all these factors and instead see a blank-ass helmet and be like "what the hell is that supposed to be?".

"Someone could place a Cleveland Browns helmet on the 50-yard line at Paul Brown stadium...and 50,000 people would show up to stare at it.")

You two made nice points but you they're easily addressed.

No one looks at a Notre Dame helmet and wonders "what the hell is that supposed to be?" Michigan's most identifiable feature is...wait for it...their HELMETS! Penn State doesn't seem to have any identity problems. Neither does Alabama who uses a freaking elephant in some of their markers. What's an elephant got to do with Crimson Tide? About as much as an elf does with Cleveland Browns.

Alabama, Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame etc. have blank or logo-less helmets but their marketing doesn't seem to suffer because of it. Are you telling me that every 20 year old Penn State or Notre Dame fan knows the history of the school? Or are they losing fans in droves because no one wants to "look back that far?"

So I guess what's OK for schools like Alabama, Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame etc. isn't ok for an NFL team with just as much history as the schools I mentioned above.

I get the thinking that the Browns need a logo. But as the aforementioned college teams have demonstrated, there is no real reason to put it on the helmet. Also if the helmet works as a logo (and judging by Browns merchandise sales around here, I am guessing that it does) why does it matter? A good marketing department can get around a blank helmet. Just ask Ohio State or Notre Dame.

Finally, if you placed a Browns helmet on the 50 at Paul Brown Stadium you'd probably piss off a whole lot of Bengals fans and I doubt they would just stare at it.

[Sport]

People would stare at a browns helmet at Paul Brown stadium if you told them that it was going to be blown up.

I once heard Micheal Wilbon say that wrigley field would be a great place just to sit and eat lunch. If you opened it on off days then you would get maximum capacity for just sitting and eating lunch because it's such a pleasant environment. That's what I picture about that browns quote, 50,000 people just sitting there eating lunch looking at an orange helmet.

[tBBP]

I think people fault the Browns helmet because in this day and age, teams go to great lengths to desing and market logos.The NFL even put pressure on the franchise not to come back as the Browns or at least design a logo. I can appreciate the Browns lack of logo. I know the back story of how they ended up with the orange helmets etc.

But see, many people don't care to look back that far and try to understand all these factors and instead see a blank-ass helmet and be like "what the hell is that supposed to be?".

"Someone could place a Cleveland Browns helmet on the 50-yard line at Paul Brown stadium...and 50,000 people would show up to stare at it.")

You two made nice points but you they're easily addressed.

No one looks at a Notre Dame helmet and wonders "what the hell is that supposed to be?" Michigan's most identifiable feature is...wait for it...their HELMETS! Penn State doesn't seem to have any identity problems. Neither does Alabama who uses a freaking elephant in some of their markers. What's an elephant got to do with Crimson Tide? About as much as an elf does with Cleveland Browns.

Alabama, Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame etc. have blank or logo-less helmets but their marketing doesn't seem to suffer because of it. Are you telling me that every 20 year old Penn State or Notre Dame fan knows the history of the school? Or are they losing fans in droves because no one wants to "look back that far?"

So I guess what's OK for schools like Alabama, Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame etc. isn't ok for an NFL team with just as much history as the schools I mentioned above.

I get the thinking that the Browns need a logo. But as the aforementioned college teams have demonstrated, there is no real reason to put it on the helmet. Also if the helmet works as a logo (and judging by Browns merchandise sales around here, I am guessing that it does) why does it matter? A good marketing department can get around a blank helmet. Just ask Ohio State or Notre Dame.

Finally, if you placed a Browns helmet on the 50 at Paul Brown Stadium you'd probably piss off a whole lot of Bengals fans and I doubt they would just stare at it.

Yyyyyeah--you caught me on that last line. Brain-fart of the CENTURY. I meant the Cleveland Browns Stadium (see what typing a post while recalling the Cleveland Browns history in your head can do to you??). That's what happens when I'm supposed to be working and instead I'm in here wandering off-task.

To add to what you replied to me about...The Browns don't necessarily need a helmet logo--at least I don't think so (anymore). Some people do think that they do or should stick a logo on their domes (for reasons I mentioned up above). Just offering my opinion about what might run through the minds of other people. I myself could really care less about the Browns helmets (again--anymore). To hit up the merchandising point, plenty of Browns merchandise featuring both the Dawg and Brownie the Elf has been made available for purchase (and in an odd twist of fate, I happen to own two pieces of Browns merchandise--one a cap, the other a jacket--both of which feature of those two logos or the other). So yes--the marks are out there, and most knowledgeable people know what team they stand for. The primary point I was trying to make up above is tied into a mark on a helmet being the primary identifiable feature of the team juxtaposed with the flak the Browns catch due to their lack of a mark of any kind. Just one man's perspective...

Anyhow...let me jump this thread train back on the tracks from whence it rolled out of the station. As was the case for my breakdown in the NFC helmet thread...

Criteria: stripped completely of any ties to tradition and/or history, based purely on aesthetic appeal, as if I'm seeing these things for the first time; divided by conference; graded on a four-point system, against nothing but the helmets themselves. One additional note: uniqueness counts for a lot here, as in original design, as in unique colors/logos...that type of thing.

4-PERFECT (or damn-near close to it)

3-NICE

2-DECENT (but indifferent)

1-"BLAH"

So here we go...

NORTH

RAVENS: Do. Not. Like. It. At. All. Yes, I'm full aware that it's pretty hard to depict a black bird on a black helmet (even though the Atlanta Falcons somehow found a rather "blah" way to do it before their revision)...BUT, that bird also looks goofy as hell. (And since when does a raven have a white beak?) Either way it goes...irregardless of color, forcing that "B" into that bird's head looks pretty daggone tacky to me. The purple stripes on the helmet are barely noticeable from a distance. Despite all that... 2

BENGALS: The absolute most unique helmet in the whole NFL. Straight-up GENIUS. (And if the Bengals ever are allowed to use that proposed reversed-out helmet that popped up in one of Marvin Lewis' interviews some time ago...I believe a lot of eyes might go googly.) 4

BROWNS: One word: plain. That is it...that is all. (I did enough opinionating about this thing in previous posts...but now I'm grading it based on my own criteria set forth up above.) 1

STEELERS: Interesting quirk that the logo is only on one side. If I were to be seeing this for the first time, I'd definitely have some questions. Besides that, though...overall, rather plain. 2.5 (only because of that quirk)

WEST

BRONCOS: Ain't much a fan of the logo (it looks like, with a couple more zigs and zags, it might could inch closer to San Diego Charger alt logo territory). The thing does have a rather unique striping arrangement--I'll give it that. I guess, though, overall...it's aiight. 2.5

CHIEFS: Considering what one might could do with a team named the Chiefs, this thing looks entirely too milquetoast for my liking. (And if no one told me...I'd never know yellow--or gold, whatever the Chiefs choose to call it--was even a part of the color scheme.) 1.5

RAIDERS: If I was to be seeing the shield logo for the first time, the first thing that would run across my mind would be "this is the best they could come up with"? I think that, added to the fact that the helmet and facemask blend in with each other (in other words, I believe a black facemsk would look so much better) results in this... 1.25

CHARGERS: Lightning bolts. Quite the literal reference to the team nickname. However...having those bolts against a white background doesn't really do much for me. I'll give it a bonus for at least being somewhat unique. 2.5

EAST

BILLS: Don't really have a problem with the logo here...it's just the fact that that red laser stripe bleeds into the background of the same color, therefore losing some if not pretty much all of it's "pop". I will say that it's a TAD bit oversized on the helmet. And that center striping arrangement really bugs me with all the different colors on there. BUT...the helmet is red, and red is a highly visible color, and I like color, so let's go with this here... 3

DOLPHINS: For some reason, I've never cared for the Dolphins' logo. I don't know...it seems to me like the thing should be depicted in some type of forward-ish motion instead of jumping through a sun. Just a bit too cartoony for me. HOWEVER...the helmet wins points for unique colors. Even still... 2.5

PATRIOTS: the fact that the Flying Elvis creates something of a streaking effect, like a flag flapping in the wind, gives it a pretty cool profile. The logo itself is okay, I suppose...but for some reason, that red facemask looks so out of place it ain't even funny. 3

JETS: True...jets ain't exactly the best thing to create a logo out of...but this helmet has no semblance of a jet or anything that could even hint at a connotation of "jet" anywhere on it other than the team name being spelled out...over top of an outlined NY, which kinda looks cluttered. I think the stripes kinda save this from being completely "blah". 2

SOUTH

TEXANS: Quite possibly my favorite NFL logo (among primary marks, anyway). It's a bit oversized, but, that's a rather minor quabble. Also a bit of a minor quabble: my constant thinking that maybe this logo would look better on a white helmet. Still a mighty fine helmet nonetheless. 3.5

COLTS: Horseshoe logo is pretty indicative of the team name, boring as it may be to look at. However...the helmet itself is still plain as I don't know what. Just like the Jets...the stripes save this from being a total "blah". 1.5

JAGUARS: Nice logo. however, it gets a little lost on that black background. Maybe a white outline would help it pop off that helmet a little more. Solid though, overall. 3

TITANS: If I was seeing the "flaming thumbtack" for the first time, I'd think it was rather cool, with it resembling something of a fireball. I guess the stripes fit the helmet somehow. I like it. 3.5

[bulldogbarks55]

MOD edit.

[random_ax]

I think people fault the Browns helmet because in this day and age, teams go to great lengths to desing and market logos.The NFL even put pressure on the franchise not to come back as the Browns or at least design a logo. I can appreciate the Browns lack of logo. I know the back story of how they ended up with the orange helmets etc.

But see, many people don't care to look back that far and try to understand all these factors and instead see a blank-ass helmet and be like "what the hell is that supposed to be?".

"Someone could place a Cleveland Browns helmet on the 50-yard line at Paul Brown stadium...and 50,000 people would show up to stare at it.")

You two made nice points but you they're easily addressed.

No one looks at a Notre Dame helmet and wonders "what the hell is that supposed to be?" Michigan's most identifiable feature is...wait for it...their HELMETS! Penn State doesn't seem to have any identity problems. Neither does Alabama who uses a freaking elephant in some of their markers. What's an elephant got to do with Crimson Tide? About as much as an elf does with Cleveland Browns.

Alabama, Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame etc. have blank or logo-less helmets but their marketing doesn't seem to suffer because of it. Are you telling me that every 20 year old Penn State or Notre Dame fan knows the history of the school? Or are they losing fans in droves because no one wants to "look back that far?"

So I guess what's OK for schools like Alabama, Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame etc. isn't ok for an NFL team with just as much history as the schools I mentioned above.

I get the thinking that the Browns need a logo. But as the aforementioned college teams have demonstrated, there is no real reason to put it on the helmet. Also if the helmet works as a logo (and judging by Browns merchandise sales around here, I am guessing that it does) why does it matter? A good marketing department can get around a blank helmet. Just ask Ohio State or Notre Dame.

Finally, if you placed a Browns helmet on the 50 at Paul Brown Stadium you'd probably piss off a whole lot of Bengals fans and I doubt they would just stare at it.

Yyyyyeah--you caught me on that last line. Brain-fart of the CENTURY. I meant the Cleveland Browns Stadium (see what typing a post while recalling the Cleveland Browns history in your head can do to you??). That's what happens when I'm supposed to be working and instead I'm in here wandering off-task.

To add to what you replied to me about...The Browns don't necessarily need a helmet logo--at least I don't think so (anymore). Some people do think that they do or should stick a logo on their domes (for reasons I mentioned up above). Just offering my opinion about what might run through the minds of other people. I myself could really care less about the Browns helmets (again--anymore). To hit up the merchandising point, plenty of Browns merchandise featuring both the Dawg and Brownie the Elf has been made available for purchase (and in an odd twist of fate, I happen to own two pieces of Browns merchandise--one a cap, the other a jacket--both of which feature of those two logos or the other). So yes--the marks are out there, and most knowledgeable people know what team they stand for. The primary point I was trying to make up above is tied into a mark on a helmet being the primary identifiable feature of the team juxtaposed with the flak the Browns catch due to their lack of a mark of any kind. Just one man's perspective...

Anyhow...let me jump this thread train back on the tracks from whence it rolled out of the station. As was the case for my breakdown in the NFC helmet thread...

Criteria: stripped completely of any ties to tradition and/or history, based purely on aesthetic appeal, as if I'm seeing these things for the first time; divided by conference; graded on a four-point system, against nothing but the helmets themselves. One additional note: uniqueness counts for a lot here, as in original design, as in unique colors/logos...that type of thing.

4-PERFECT (or damn-near close to it)

3-NICE

2-DECENT (but indifferent)

1-"BLAH"

So here we go...

NORTH

RAVENS: Do. Not. Like. It. At. All. Yes, I'm full aware that it's pretty hard to depict a black bird on a black helmet (even though the Atlanta Falcons somehow found a rather "blah" way to do it before their revision)...BUT, that bird also looks goofy as hell. (And since when does a raven have a white beak?) Either way it goes...irregardless of color, forcing that "B" into that bird's head looks pretty daggone tacky to me. The purple stripes on the helmet are barely noticeable from a distance. Despite all that... 2

BENGALS: The absolute most unique helmet in the whole NFL. Straight-up GENIUS. (And if the Bengals ever are allowed to use that proposed reversed-out helmet that popped up in one of Marvin Lewis' interviews some time ago...I believe a lot of eyes might go googly.) 4

BROWNS: One word: plain. That is it...that is all. (I did enough opinionating about this thing in previous posts...but now I'm grading it based on my own criteria set forth up above.) 1

STEELERS: Interesting quirk that the logo is only on one side. If I were to be seeing this for the first time, I'd definitely have some questions. Besides that, though...overall, rather plain. 2.5 (only because of that quirk)

WEST

BRONCOS: Ain't much a fan of the logo (it looks like, with a couple more zigs and zags, it might could inch closer to San Diego Charger alt logo territory). The thing does have a rather unique striping arrangement--I'll give it that. I guess, though, overall...it's aiight. 2.5

CHIEFS: Considering what one might could do with a team named the Chiefs, this thing looks entirely too milquetoast for my liking. (And if no one told me...I'd never know yellow--or gold, whatever the Chiefs choose to call it--was even a part of the color scheme.) 1.5

RAIDERS: If I was to be seeing the shield logo for the first time, the first thing that would run across my mind would be "this is the best they could come up with"? I think that, added to the fact that the helmet and facemask blend in with each other (in other words, I believe a black facemsk would look so much better) results in this... 1.25

CHARGERS: Lightning bolts. Quite the literal reference to the team nickname. However...having those bolts against a white background doesn't really do much for me. I'll give it a bonus for at least being somewhat unique. 2.5

EAST

BILLS: Don't really have a problem with the logo here...it's just the fact that that red laser stripe bleeds into the background of the same color, therefore losing some if not pretty much all of it's "pop". I will say that it's a TAD bit oversized on the helmet. And that center striping arrangement really bugs me with all the different colors on there. BUT...the helmet is red, and red is a highly visible color, and I like color, so let's go with this here... 3

DOLPHINS: For some reason, I've never cared for the Dolphins' logo. I don't know...it seems to me like the thing should be depicted in some type of forward-ish motion instead of jumping through a sun. Just a bit too cartoony for me. HOWEVER...the helmet wins points for unique colors. Even still... 2.5

PATRIOTS: the fact that the Flying Elvis creates something of a streaking effect, like a flag flapping in the wind, gives it a pretty cool profile. The logo itself is okay, I suppose...but for some reason, that red facemask looks so out of place it ain't even funny. 3

JETS: True...jets ain't exactly the best thing to create a logo out of...but this helmet has no semblance of a jet or anything that could even hint at a connotation of "jet" anywhere on it other than the team name being spelled out...over top of an outlined NY, which kinda looks cluttered. I think the stripes kinda save this from being completely "blah". 2

SOUTH

TEXANS: Quite possibly my favorite NFL logo (among primary marks, anyway). It's a bit oversized, but, that's a rather minor quabble. Also a bit of a minor quabble: my constant thinking that maybe this logo would look better on a white helmet. Still a mighty fine helmet nonetheless. 3.5

COLTS: Horseshoe logo is pretty indicative of the team name, boring as it may be to look at. However...the helmet itself is still plain as I don't know what. Just like the Jets...the stripes save this from being a total "blah". 1.5

JAGUARS: Nice logo. however, it gets a little lost on that black background. Maybe a white outline would help it pop off that helmet a little more. Solid though, overall. 3

TITANS: If I was seeing the "flaming thumbtack" for the first time, I'd think it was rather cool, with it resembling something of a fireball. I guess the stripes fit the helmet somehow. I like it. 3.5

Had a lot fun reading this one. Sure, I don't agree with a lot of them, but I liked your reasoning and you tried to use the non-tradition criteria of the exercise...... it's fun to read an intelligent reply here.

[Sport]

Every helmet in the AFC is not an A or an A-. The Bills suck, the ravens suck, the browns gray facemask sucks, the "spike" stripes on the titans helmet are stupid.

And YOU s***! Get a life.

I have a life. I have a girlfriend, real life friends, and a job.

Maybe you didn't understand me, and seeing that you live near rochester you're probably a bills fan, I mean that the Bills helmet sucks, the team is average. I thought that was pretty obvious being that this is a thread about helmets

[bulldogbarks55]

Every helmet in the AFC is not an A or an A-. The Bills suck, the ravens suck, the browns gray facemask sucks, the "spike" stripes on the titans helmet are stupid.

And YOU s***! Get a life.

I have a life. I have a girlfriend, real life friends, and a job.

Maybe you didn't understand me, and seeing that you live near rochester you're probably a bills fan, I mean that the Bills helmet sucks, the team is average. I thought that was pretty obvious being that this is a thread about helmets

I may live near Rochester where the Bills are treated like gods. But I hate the Bills! They're a joke! Some of us don't buy into the worship of the Bills and Sabres, even though the Rochester media promotes them more than our own minor league teams. And we're about 75 miles from Buffaslugville. No, I'm just an old geezer who doesn't like all of the new fad stuff some teams use. I'm sorry, I'm not really upset with you personally.

[JQK]

Anyone who doesn't like the Browns helmet as-is is a football commie!!!

...but in all seriousness, it's a great helmet, and a great uniform.

If people are too ignorant to understand the tradition behind certain things, it doesn't mean that everyone else must suffer for their dumbness.

Not only that, it looks fantastic. It's one of the last football uniforms that actually LOOKS like a football uniform.

[random_ax]

Anyone who doesn't like the Browns helmet as-is is a football commie!!!

...but in all seriousness, it's a great helmet, and a great uniform.

If people are too ignorant to understand the tradition behind certain things, it doesn't mean that everyone else must suffer for their dumbness.

Not only that, it looks fantastic. It's one of the last football uniforms that actually LOOKS like a football uniform.

[Jimmy!]

Anyone who doesn't like the Browns helmet as-is is a football commie!!!

...but in all seriousness, it's a great helmet, and a great uniform.

If people are too ignorant to understand the tradition behind certain things, it doesn't mean that everyone else must suffer for their dumbness.

Not only that, it looks fantastic. It's one of the last football uniforms that actually LOOKS like a football uniform.

Yeah, that's MUCH better than what they have now.

Leave the Browns alone.

[Joshawaggie]

Anyone who doesn't like the Browns helmet as-is is a football commie!!!

...but in all seriousness, it's a great helmet, and a great uniform.

If people are too ignorant to understand the tradition behind certain things, it doesn't mean that everyone else must suffer for their dumbness.

Not only that, it looks fantastic. It's one of the last football uniforms that actually LOOKS like a football uniform.

If I HAD to choose a logo to put on there, between the Elf, Dog, or =B= logo, it would be the =B= logo... I can't see them putting the elf on there.

That being said, I hope they NEVER put a logo on there, leave the Browns alone!