Browns Facemask

[Billy B]

I don't see how the white facemask for the Browns sticks out. The pants, numbers, and stripes are all white. I think that matches everything rather than sticks out, but maybe that's just me. If anything, the gray facemask that doesn't match anything else on the uniform is the one that sticks out.

[nuordr]

I've always been partial to the grey facemask, but just saw this picture tweeted by Paul Lukas. Is the white coming back?

http://t.co/7f1nnQaz

I wish all teams that do not have grey in their uniform colors would lose that color for good. This is great news!

[dmhtfld]

I've always been partial to the grey facemask, but just saw this picture tweeted by Paul Lukas. Is the white coming back?

http://t.co/7f1nnQaz

I wish all teams that do not have grey in their uniform colors would lose that color for good. This is great news!

I think you missed this post. Unfortunately its not switching this year,

http://twitter.com/#!/UniWatch/status/203161257736536065

Browns not changing facemask.

[bucknut40]

White is defiantly the way to go

[Chawls]

The best look the Bills ever had. Period.

[scraw28]

I've always been partial to the grey facemask, but just saw this picture tweeted by Paul Lukas. Is the white coming back?

http://t.co/7f1nnQaz

I wish all teams that do not have grey in their uniform colors would lose that color for good. This is great news!

I think you missed this post. Unfortunately its not switching this year,

http://twitter.com/#!/UniWatch/status/203161257736536065

Browns not changing facemask.

I don't think it's switching ever. the browns are the browns....I have already given up

[STL FANATIC]

too many of you guys base your color preferences on aesthetics alone, without thinking about what these design decisions actually "say". its rarely about what 1 person may think looks good on a helmet by itself. the Browns are an old school brand. they want to reflect in their current uniforms what they had back in the Jim Brown days. thats why you do grey mask and black shoes. same for Indy. its appropriate, as well as aesthetically pleasing (depending on who you ask)

the reason it dosent work for Arizona is because they're playing in a brand new stadium with a very modern uniform, and a very modern logo. the grey face mask is out of place; it will always be an element that takes you back to the 1960/70s.

On the contrary, I think people are basing too much on their love of the past instead of good and fundamental design principles.

[WSU151]

Sorry but the white facemask is a downgrade... big time. Usually I hate teams using non-team colors or non-team logos/designs, but the gray facemask in football is the exception. Any team with a traditional, classic uniform looks hundreds upon thousands of times better than with a team colors facemask. The Colts, Giants, and Browns look great with gray face masks. However, a modern team like the Cardinals look terrible. I hate when teams don't at least match the helmet. The patriots with their gray helmet and red facemask look like a cartoon character.

I disagree with this 100%. The Patriots look a billion times better with a red mask (it's better than a gray or navy mask) and the Browns look a billion times better with a white mask.

[BBTV]

Perhaps the answer would be for the Browns to add some gray to their uniforms somehow. Orange+Brown+Gray is a fantastic autumnal combination.

[infrared41]

White is defiantly the way to go

I love this place.

[BrandMooreArt]

too many of you guys base your color preferences on aesthetics alone, without thinking about what these design decisions actually "say". its rarely about what 1 person may think looks good on a helmet by itself. the Browns are an old school brand. they want to reflect in their current uniforms what they had back in the Jim Brown days. thats why you do grey mask and black shoes. same for Indy. its appropriate, as well as aesthetically pleasing (depending on who you ask)

the reason it dosent work for Arizona is because they're playing in a brand new stadium with a very modern uniform, and a very modern logo. the grey face mask is out of place; it will always be an element that takes you back to the 1960/70s.

On the contrary, I think people are basing too much on their love of the past instead of good and fundamental design principles.

which begins with brand voice

[Captain Poncho]

too many of you guys base your color preferences on aesthetics alone, without thinking about what these design decisions actually "say". its rarely about what 1 person may think looks good on a helmet by itself. the Browns are an old school brand. they want to reflect in their current uniforms what they had back in the Jim Brown days. thats why you do grey mask and black shoes. same for Indy. its appropriate, as well as aesthetically pleasing (depending on who you ask)

the reason it dosent work for Arizona is because they're playing in a brand new stadium with a very modern uniform, and a very modern logo. the grey face mask is out of place; it will always be an element that takes you back to the 1960/70s.

On the contrary, I think people are basing too much on their love of the past instead of good and fundamental design principles.

which begins with brand voice

Marketing speak. Visual fundamentals are visual fundamentals, aside from corporate theory.

[BrandMooreArt]

too many of you guys base your color preferences on aesthetics alone, without thinking about what these design decisions actually "say". its rarely about what 1 person may think looks good on a helmet by itself. the Browns are an old school brand. they want to reflect in their current uniforms what they had back in the Jim Brown days. thats why you do grey mask and black shoes. same for Indy. its appropriate, as well as aesthetically pleasing (depending on who you ask)

the reason it dosent work for Arizona is because they're playing in a brand new stadium with a very modern uniform, and a very modern logo. the grey face mask is out of place; it will always be an element that takes you back to the 1960/70s.

On the contrary, I think people are basing too much on their love of the past instead of good and fundamental design principles.

which begins with brand voice

Marketing speak. Visual fundamentals are visual fundamentals, aside from corporate theory.

no, thats how design works. each design project begins with figuring out what needs to be communicated. the Browns want to be an old school, "throwback" kind of brand. white face mask dosent align with that. you'll never get everyone to agree that grey, white, or brown looks best. but grey works best for what they want to do. its not about "what looks pretty" all the time. even if it were, i'd still choose the grey

[Chazberg]

Everyone's opinion of gray masks aside, what the hell kind of helmet/facemask is that guy wearing??

[andrewharrington]

too many of you guys base your color preferences on aesthetics alone, without thinking about what these design decisions actually "say". its rarely about what 1 person may think looks good on a helmet by itself. the Browns are an old school brand. they want to reflect in their current uniforms what they had back in the Jim Brown days. thats why you do grey mask and black shoes. same for Indy. its appropriate, as well as aesthetically pleasing (depending on who you ask)

the reason it dosent work for Arizona is because they're playing in a brand new stadium with a very modern uniform, and a very modern logo. the grey face mask is out of place; it will always be an element that takes you back to the 1960/70s.

On the contrary, I think people are basing too much on their love of the past instead of good and fundamental design principles.

which begins with brand voice

Marketing speak. Visual fundamentals are visual fundamentals, aside from corporate theory.

no, thats how design works. each design project begins with figuring out what needs to be communicated. the Browns want to be an old school, "throwback" kind of brand. white face mask dosent align with that. you'll never get everyone to agree that grey, white, or brown looks best. but grey works best for what they want to do. its not about "what looks pretty" all the time. even if it were, i'd still choose the grey

I can't begin to fathom why people can't understand what you are saying. You're spot on. A white facemask simply does not fit the Browns' vision of their brand. The grey version does, perfectly, and that is what makes it a better choice based on fundamental design principles. They don't want to be 1980, when they were a flashy, exciting, comeback team wearing orange pants. They don't want to be 1987, when they became the poster children of sporting heartbreak. The Browns want to be 1950. They want to be 1964. They want to look like they did when they were the best, led by some of the greatest players ever to play the game, and the grey mask is the better choice for that.

Even taking all that away, let's look at the pure aesthetics of it. There's nothing wrong with some pieces of ancillary equipment being a neutral color, the same way a car traditionally has black tires and a chrome grille, even though the 'color scheme' of the vehicle may be british racing green over tan leather with red accents. One, it gives the brain and eyes a place to rest, much like the way white space functions in a layout. Two, using a neutral color for those other items allows the team colors on the other portions of the uniform to speak louder, with more emphasis. It brigs to mind the old quote, "If everything stands out, nothing really stands out." That's how I look at brightly colored facemasks and shoes. It's too much most of the time. A complex, cluttered mess of team colors from head to toe. I prefer having the neutrals in there to balance out the team colors and provide that virtual 'white space' in the uniform.

[Captain Poncho]

no, thats how design works. each design project begins with figuring out what needs to be communicated. the Browns want to be an old school, "throwback" kind of brand. white face mask dosent align with that. you'll never get everyone to agree that grey, white, or brown looks best. but grey works best for what they want to do. its not about "what looks pretty" all the time. even if it were, i'd still choose the grey

Denigrating it to "what looks pretty" is a petty dismissive label.

What is a designer's job if not to come up with the best visual solution? I understand the "we want to look old school" idea, but breaking with fundamentals of visual design is always, always a bad idea compositionally. Is the brand's wishes to look old best served by a grey face mask? The rubber stamp of grey face mask = we've been around forever is a quick-fix ploy that communicates laziness on the part of the design team. There are plethora ideas that help serve to establish a brand's long-time existence besides violating what is basic design fundamentals.

These basic design fundamentals do not change based on corporate branding theory. They exist separate from it.

Adhering to them is good practice.

This grey face mask switch is an artificial fad that will play itself out over the next decade, and thus, will be remembered more as a ploy than as a stylistic or fundamental benefit to the teams that went with it.

[Captain Poncho]

I can't begin to fathom why people can't understand what you are saying. You're spot on. A white facemask simply does not fit the Browns' vision of their brand. The grey version does, perfectly, and that is what makes it a better choice based on fundamental design principles. They don't want to be 1980, when they were a flashy, exciting, comeback team wearing orange pants. They don't want to be 1987, when they became the poster children of sporting heartbreak. The Browns want to be 1950. They want to be 1964. They want to look like they did when they were the best, led by some of the greatest players ever to play the game, and the grey mask is the better choice for that.

Even taking all that away, let's look at the pure aesthetics of it. There's nothing wrong with some pieces of ancillary equipment being a neutral color, the same way a car traditionally has black tires and a chrome grille, even though the 'color scheme' of the vehicle may be british racing green over tan leather with red accents. One, it gives the brain and eyes a place to rest, much like the way white space functions in a layout. Two, using a neutral color for those other items allows the team colors on the other portions of the uniform to speak louder, with more emphasis. It brigs to mind the old quote, "If everything stands out, nothing really stands out." That's how I look at brightly colored facemasks and shoes. It's too much most of the time. A complex, cluttered mess of team colors from head to toe. I prefer having the neutrals in there to balance out the team colors and provide that virtual 'white space' in the uniform.

I don't have much time to retort here, but just wanted to ask why you think a uniform made mostly of white and brown with highlights of orange needs grey introduced in order to give "visual resting space." Is brown hard to look at? Is white? How does "everything stand out" on an earth-tone uniform? How is a white face mask easier to look at than a clashing color? How does a clashing color NOT draw your eye to its irregularity?

These questions are only raised because the introduction of the grey simply violates basic design principles.

[BrandMooreArt]

I can't begin to fathom why people can't understand what you are saying. You're spot on. A white facemask simply does not fit the Browns' vision of their brand. The grey version does, perfectly, and that is what makes it a better choice based on fundamental design principles. They don't want to be 1980, when they were a flashy, exciting, comeback team wearing orange pants. They don't want to be 1987, when they became the poster children of sporting heartbreak. The Browns want to be 1950. They want to be 1964. They want to look like they did when they were the best, led by some of the greatest players ever to play the game, and the grey mask is the better choice for that.

Even taking all that away, let's look at the pure aesthetics of it. There's nothing wrong with some pieces of ancillary equipment being a neutral color, the same way a car traditionally has black tires and a chrome grille, even though the 'color scheme' of the vehicle may be british racing green over tan leather with red accents. One, it gives the brain and eyes a place to rest, much like the way white space functions in a layout. Two, using a neutral color for those other items allows the team colors on the other portions of the uniform to speak louder, with more emphasis. It brigs to mind the old quote, "If everything stands out, nothing really stands out." That's how I look at brightly colored facemasks and shoes. It's too much most of the time. A complex, cluttered mess of team colors from head to toe. I prefer having the neutrals in there to balance out the team colors and provide that virtual 'white space' in the uniform.

I don't have much time to retort here, but just wanted to ask why you think a uniform made mostly of white and brown with highlights of orange needs grey introduced in order to give "visual resting space." Is brown hard to look at? Is white? How does "everything stand out" on an earth-tone uniform? How is a white face mask easier to look at than a clashing color? How does a clashing color NOT draw your eye to its irregularity?

These questions are only raised because the introduction of the grey simply violates basic design principles.

im almost at a middle ground with you here. i dont think "grey violates design principals" to the point that its a bad element. i see the argument that grey dosnt have a rhythm to the design because theres not any grey elsewhere. but there is unity. it feels as though it belongs. and as Andrew has pointed out as well, it fits because their brand direction already makes this choice for us.

i think we're mostly talking about an aesthetic preference where we are just simply split on. i like the grey mask regardless of brand direction. lets go into another principal: contrast. white provides more on the helmet, and i think thats too much, i cant help but notice the white mask and not in a good way. grey kills that a little.

i think Richard Baird says it better than i. . .

"The point of strategy is to make sure that each of your design directions are relevant and understandable to a particular consumer or visitor. Superfluous detail dilutes impact and can lead to a confusing message so identifying which visual devices are most communicative prior to design can save time and keep solutions focused and effective. If you can’t explain what each component offers then it’s likely to have be an aesthetic choice rather one drawn from anything meaningful."

[STL FANATIC]

If they intend to use gray either for the sake of aesthetics (which I disagree with) or as a nod to the past (which is lame, but fine), then by all means gray. But don't do so at the expense of design fundamentals. You're absolutely right. It conveys a message. But you know what else it does? Stick out like a sore thumb because it has no place in that visual appearance. If they're intent on a gray facemask, then that decision must come with more thought and better integration.

Right now the thought process is too simple. It's a single decision without thought given to how it affects the rest of the visual brand or at the very least if there are better solutions for integrating it into their visual brand. This was a two step process. Step 1 - We want to make people think of the past. Step 2 - Let's make the facemask gray. That's not enough thought. Slip some grey into the uniforms then. At least evaluate the possibilities.

You're absolutely right that the gray mask was done for a reason, but it was a lazy decision.

And even if I get past that and simply acknowledge that they did it to meet their vision of their brand. Well fine. Then I'm telling them they have a vision of their brand and they need to reevaluate. Because looking old for the sake of looking old is a horrible, horrible decision.

[oldschoolvikings]

A white facemask simply does not fit the Browns' vision of their brand. The grey version does, perfectly, and that is what makes it a better choice based on fundamental design principles. They don't want to be 1980, when they were a flashy, exciting, comeback team wearing orange pants. They don't want to be 1987, when they became the poster children of sporting heartbreak. The Browns want to be 1950. They want to be 1964. They want to look like they did when they were the best, led by some of the greatest players ever to play the game, and the grey mask is the better choice for that.

Makes perfect sense to me.

So why don't they bring back the brown socks with the stripes that matched the jersey? Now THAT is a 50's/60's look.