The 1960's Browns logo that never was.

[The_Admiral]

Still, being objective about it, it's not a pleasant identity.

Sure it is. Autumn colors for an autumn sport. That said, any other team anywhere else in any other sport wouldn't be able to pull it off very well. Yes, I know the Padres wore orange with brown; no, they looked like Taco Bell clerks.

[elsephen]

No one can pull that look off. Autumn sport or not. It's terrible. But the Browns are terrible, therefore the look fits for them.

It'd be bad if they actually looked like a professional team, with the way they play football.

[IceCap]

I love the gray facemask. As for the uniforms... i with they would bring back the orange pants on a regular basis. Although i like the brown pants, i think the orange ones put them to shame.

Grey facemaks are tricky. In my opinion a team can pull it off if they have grey or silver elsewhere in the uniform, or if they've never gone away from it. Take the Cardinals. They would look better with a coloured facemask, but since they've always had grey facemasks I can grudgingly accept it. The reason I don't like grey facemasks on the Colts and Browns is because both teams dropped grey for coloured versions. They've crossed that line. So now their grey facemasks look out of place rather then looking classic.

[DustDevil61]

As far as the Browns' facemask goes, I prefer the white facemask; it went well with the rest of the uniform, and it had that slight modern feel to it without alienating the Browns' identity. Not to mention that it reminds me of the last real period of greatness in Browns history--the Kosar era:

That said, however, brown facemasks could be good, and gray is OK, but white takes the cake for me.

I'll agree with Admiral that the Browns colors are excellent for football; what says autumn/early winter better than orange, brown, and white (and even some gray)?

I'll disagree on saying that brown could work--if done right and in the right context (i.e. late 1980s Padres)--in any sport, but that's a different debate.

[Brick]

The Washington player seems to be tackling a member of the Cowboys or the Lions, not the Browns.

[oldschoolvikings]

Still, being objective about it, it's not a pleasant identity.

Sure it is. Autumn colors for an autumn sport. That said, any other team anywhere else in any other sport wouldn't be able to pull it off very well. Yes, I know the Padres wore orange with brown; no, they looked like Taco Bell clerks.

Brown and Orange is an awesome color scheme. And, for that matter, the Padres' brown was great, too.

Or, I guess we could just have every team wear either navy or black... that would be kewl!

[The_Admiral]

Kind of a false dichotomy there, Johnny Rolleyes. I think you can avoid a navy/black duopoly without outfitting a team in the color scheme of a 1976 station wagon.

[infrared41]

This is a serious question for all the Browns detractors; does it matter to any of you that the overwhelming majority of Browns fans are very happy with the look of the team? I'm not looking for a fight or anything, I'm just curious because it seems of all the NFL teams, The Browns start the most "modernize/update" or "add a logo" type discussions.

Oh and just so you know, if you people get your way and up our uniforms we're going to come looking for all of you.

[Eye]

This is a serious question for all the Browns detractors; does it matter to any of you that the overwhelming majority of Browns fans are very happy with the look of the team? I'm not looking for a fight or anything, I'm just curious because it seems of all the NFL teams, The Browns start the most "modernize/update" or "add a logo" type discussions.

Oh and just so you know, if you people get your way and up our uniforms we're going to come looking for all of you.

I liked the look from 1999 until I believe 2002. No stupid wordmark above the numbers, and white facemask. I'm not entirely sure if pants stripes were different widths, but as far as jerseys and white pants went, that look was great. (Not that the current look is too different, sans brown pants, though.)

[IceCap]

2. Pro-bowl cornerback Hanford Dixon gave his defensive teammates the name 'dawgs' to inspire them before the 1985 season. The idea started during the 1985 Training Camp at Lakeland Community College in Kirtland, Ohio when Dixon and fellow pro-bowl cornerback Frank Minnifield began using the dog-versus-cat relationship between the quarterback and the defense as a motivator, with the quarterback being the cat, and the defense being the dog. Whenever the defense would record a sack the defensive players would bark at each other. This carried into the stands at training camp, where fans started barking along with the players. Dixon and Minnifield then put up the first "dawg pound" banner in front of the bleachers before the first preseason game at old Cleveland Stadium. Thus, the 'dawg' moniker will always be about the players first, which is why I don't mind it as a logo, though I never want to see it (or anything else except numbers) on the helmets.

And? That nickname, as it applies to the players, is contained to a specific era. They aren't known as the "Dawgs" anymore. The players that made up that "Dawgs" team are long gone. Now the term refers to a section of the Browns' fanbase, nothing more. And the mascot of a section of the team's overall fanbase does not make for an appropriate team identity.

3. I think putting a brown facemask on the helmet makes it look very 'high-schoolish' because you know any high school with a grey mask would have changed it to brown by now, and I believe there are a few local schools that have adopted that look.

Ok, then how about going back to white masks? Had they never gone away from grey I would be fine with them. They did make a change though, and had white masks for over 28 seasons (31 years). Going back to grey after that long is nothing but a cheap attempt to jump on the throwback bandwagon. They crossed the line of coloured facemasks, they can't claim to be going with grey for the sake of a classic look.

This is a serious question for all the Browns detractors; does it matter to any of you that the overwhelming majority of Browns fans are very happy with the look of the team? I'm not looking for a fight or anything, I'm just curious because it seems of all the NFL teams, The Browns start the most "modernize/update" or "add a logo" type discussions.

I think you may misunderstand me. While I do think the Browns' colour scheme is unappealing (fall colours or not), I wouldn't have them wear anything else. I don't want to see them change. Yes, the sleeve stripes are looking incredibly cramped, but I think that's more a matter of the NFL enforcing its own uniform regulations rather then sleeve stripes becoming outdated.

The only things I want to see the Browns fix are the logo problem and the facemaks. Even with the logo, I just want them to designate a primary mark, I don't want it used on the helmet. As for the facemasks, I've already said my piece on that. Either brown or white works for me, just lose the grey.

[infrared41]

I think you may misunderstand me. While I do think the Browns' colour scheme is unappealing (fall colours or not), I wouldn't have them wear anything else. I don't want to see them change. Yes, the sleeve stripes are looking incredibly cramped, but I think that's more a matter of the NFL enforcing its own uniform regulations rather then sleeve stripes becoming outdated.

The only things I want to see the Browns fix are the logo problem and the facemaks. Even with the logo, I just want them to designate a primary mark, I don't want it used on the helmet. As for the facemasks, I've already said my piece on that. Either brown or white works for me, just lose the grey.

I'm with you on the facemask. As a proponent of all things old school I was thrilled when they first went to the gray masks. After seeing them in practical application I found myself thinking they just aren't as cool as I remembered them (yes, I am old enough to remember when they had gray facemasks the first time around.) The only other option is white. Brown would look cheap and it would be flat out butt-ugly. Whoever said a brown facemask would look like a high school gimmick hit it right on the head. The white facemask really works best.

With regard to a logo, even I have to admit that seeing nothing but a spot of orange representing the Browns on FOX's football graphics is a bit silly. They really need to have something other than the helmet. That said, the only real choices for a logo are either the elf (my first preference) or the "B." At first I wasn't crazy about using the "B" but the more I think about the more it makes sense. If done correctly, the "B" could be used a lot like Green Bay's "G." From a marketing standpoint the "B" makes more sense. As cool as I think it is, the truth is that younger fans have no connection to the elf. In any case, the Browns do need to settle on something. I don't think they gave the "B" enough to to catch on before they decided to relegate it to second or third marker status.

Any type of Dawg Pound logo is a problem on a few different levels. First, the dawg pound represents only a small portion of Browns fans. Second, not all Browns fans think the Dawg Pound is "cool" or representative of the team and it's fans. We'd rather not let a bunch of drunken idiots be the first thing people think of when they think of our team. Finally, using the Dawg Pound as part of the logo makes about as much sense as using a slice of cheese for a Packers logo or a hog's face as a Redskins logo.

The sleeve stripe problem could be solved by simply making teams wear sleeves again. It looks a helluva lot better and it would solve a multitude of uniform issues throughout the league.

[andrewharrington]

I like the grey masks, but my opinion is that either all teams should have them, or no teams should have them, except those with grey in their identity.

And I simply disagree about the Dawgs. To me, that will always be representative of the players regardless of the fact that it has lived on because of the fans.

[Sport]

My problem with the Browns is that they promote the history of their team, but since they've come back into the league they've fiddled with their uniforms more than anybody else. And don't even get me started on the AL on their sleeves.

Timeline

-1999 they wore the uniform as I feel it's supposed to be worn. Meaning, the stripes on the brown jersey were seperated, they had white facemasks and matching stripes on the socks. The pants at the time were orange-brown-orange. On the road they wore all white with matching white striped socks.

- around 2002 they started to screw around with the identity. They had the orange pants experiment and orange alternate, started wearing solid colored socks. At one point they were wearing two different sets of white pants. One went brown-orange-brown, the other worn mostly at home went brown-white-orange-white-brown.

- 2006ish, 2007 we entered into the worst period since the Browns' return. They have no idea what they want to do. I think the striping change on the brown jerseys is good because now it matches the road jersey striping and I'm okay with the return to the orange-brown-orange striping, but other than that I think their current identity is a mixed mess. They switched to gray facemasks to look throwback, but continue to wear stripeless socks. They switch to gray facemasks to look throwback, but then begin to wear stripeless brown pants (a very modern element). At least they've started to wear the white striped socks with the Brown pants. Then there's the throwback, which is basically the home jersey minus sleeve numbers (a jersey that a lot of dumb people have been buying by accident), skinnier pants stripes (which I prefer to their usual pants stripe width) and they use a helmet that nobody remembers.

I'm a fan of a Browns' rival, but I don't hate their uniforms, actually quite the opposite, but I hate to see any good identity messed with. You know for a city that fought so hard to keep their football team's identity they sure have :censored:ed with it a lot since returning to the league. IMO, if you want to go back to gray facemasks and the stripes that Jim Brown wore then go all the way, wear the striped socks, skinny pants stripes, and gray facemasks, and never deviate from that.

[BBTV]

I like the grey masks, but my opinion is that either all teams should have them, or no teams should have them, except those with grey in their identity.

And I simply disagree about the Dawgs. To me, that will always be representative of the players regardless of the fact that it has lived on because of the fans.

In general, I hate gray masks, but I agree with the bolded part.

However, as I've probably said before, I give the Browns an exception, for no reason other than I just love how gray looks with orange and brown. I wish it was a regular part of their color scheme, but their gray facemasks were such a huge improvement over the white ones that I can't hold them to my "rule".

[IceCap]

The sleeve stripe problem could be solved by simply making teams wear sleeves again. It looks a helluva lot better and it would solve a multitude of uniform issues throughout the league.

Agreed. I think it was McCarthy who brought up the Pro-Bowl jerseys. The players get them with no time to "customize" the cut, and thus we see actual sleeves. And the players seemed to play just fine in them. So if the NFL would just enforce their own uniform regulations the problem would solve itself.

[Harmening]

I like the grey masks, but my opinion is that either all teams should have them, or no teams should have them, except those with grey in their identity.

And I simply disagree about the Dawgs. To me, that will always be representative of the players regardless of the fact that it has lived on because of the fans.

In general, I hate gray masks, but I agree with the bolded part.

However, as I've probably said before, I give the Browns an exception, for no reason other than I just love how gray looks with orange and brown. I wish it was a regular part of their color scheme, but their gray facemasks were such a huge improvement over the white ones that I can't hold them to my "rule".

I'm with you here. I think it looks great on the orange helmet.

[LEWJ]

I liked the look from 1999 until I believe 2002. No stupid wordmark above the numbers, and white facemask. I'm not entirely sure if pants stripes were different widths, but as far as jerseys and white pants went, that look was great. (Not that the current look is too different, sans brown pants, though.)

I agree with you there.

This looks outstanding:

The only problem I had with that era of uniforms was the gaps in between the stripes on the brown jersey. (See this compared to this). I don't know why it was like that... The white and orange jersey both didn't have the 'gaps' in between the stripes.

Yea I'll admit I think this looks great too:

[CJworks]

Did the Browns really use drop shadows? When?

[LEWJ]

Did the Browns really use drop shadows? When?

Yep, just with the orange jerseys. (And way back in the day, like around the Otto Graham days.)

[Cujo]

Did the Browns really use drop shadows? When?

2003 -- Back when the Browns' identity had a shred of personality.

I prefer the white facemasks, orange alternates, and that weird B-football logo to than anything about Cleveland's current motif, which consists of retro gray facemasks, solid dark brown pants, and that 90s style helmet logo.... Do the Browns try to look unorganized on purpose?