Browns Facemask

[BrandMooreArt]

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.

well what other solution is there to making the helmet look like it came from the 50s/60s? history has the answer tot he solution and there is only 1. they didnt sport black mask, or red mask back in the day. it was grey. the answer is simple because there is only one

[STL FANATIC]

Then they shouldn't be going back to the 50s/60s.

The Browns identity already did a good job of bringing the good from that era and updating the bad. That's how those things should work. My biggest disdain for any sort of retro look is that it's lazy. They bring it all back instead of bringing back the good and fixing the problems.

By bringing the gray back, the Browns are simply brining back a problem from their design of that era. That's lazy and it doesn't look very good.

[McCall]

Gray facemasks are only a problem to some. To others it's aesthetically pleasing. So you can't argue that aspect as fact, because it's opinion.

[CrazyAnna]

I suppose they look good in both grey or white.

[andrewharrington]

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.

What you're dismissing here is that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with having a neutral-colored piece of ancillary equipment. It might violate your own personal rules, but nowhere is there a steadfast rule. I think If I were finishing off the Browns' uniform, I'd specify grey gloves and black shoes to complete the look. The facemask would be even better in that case because it would coordinate with the gloves. Likewise, if I'm building a classic bicycle, and painting it red with blue and white stripes, I'm probably not going to get a matching saddle and handlebar tape for it. It's the classic look I'm after, so I'm going to get brown or black leather for the saddle and tape, and everything else is going to be neutral, plain grey metal or chrome. All in all, some prefer a uniform that's heavier on neutrals than on team colors. Others like a uniform that's only team color, head to toe. Neither one is 'correct' from a visual standpoint, but each one says something completely different about the team that wears it.

I'm having trouble understanding how a design decision can be labeled 'lazy' if it perfectly conveys the exact message that the team wants it to. Isn't that like a math teacher saying, "Well, your solution is correct, and that's a legitimate method you used to solve the problem, but that's not the way I would have done it, so I took a few points off."

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.

This would be good. It's the one change I hoped would come, but alas, it wasn't to be.

Gray facemasks are only a problem to some. To others it's aesthetically pleasing. So you can't argue that aspect as fact, because it's opinion.

Boom. It really is that simple. We're all making a mountain out of a molehill.

[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.

What you're dismissing here is that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with having neutral-colored piece of ancillary equipment. It might violate your own personal rules, but nowhere is there a steadfast rule. Some prefer a uniform that's heavier on neutrals than on team colors. Others like a uniform that's only team color, head to toe. Neither one is 'correct' from a visual standpoint, but each one says something completely different about the team that wears it.

I'm having trouble understanding how a design decision can be labeled 'lazy' if it perfectly conveys the exact message that the team wants it to. Isn't that like a math teacher saying, "Well, your solution is correct, and that's a legitimate method you used to solve the problem, but that's not the way I would have done it, so I took a few points off."

If gray is a neutral color, then black is also. Worth keeping that in mind.

Gray is by definition a neutral color (as is black and white), but gray is NOT the neutral color of a facemask. We need to get past this type of thinking because it's simply no longer true. Facemasks are ordered in the chosen color, they don't show up gray waiting to be painted.

Anyways, much of what we discuss here is opinion, and even when we discuss things like fundamentals and theories, those are still going to be debatable items.

[ESTONES6]

Sorry, but the white facemask sticks out infinetely more than the gray facemask. You don't have to know anything about design, to know that. You just need eyes.

[sonny]

Gray facemasks are only a problem to some. To others it's aesthetically pleasing. So you can't argue that aspect as fact, because it's opinion.

Thank you. I for one love grey face masks. I personally thinks it looks great.

[STL FANATIC]

Sorry, but the white facemask sticks out infinetely more than the gray facemask. You don't have to know anything about design, to know that. You just need eyes.

Sticks out, but not like a sore thumb.

[Chawls]

Grey facemasks: an issue as convoluted as religion or politics.

[ARTnSocal]

The best look the Bills ever had. Period.

>>>>

I won't argue wiv dat one .... but

My all-time favorites (not including throwbacks) are the 1973 away uniforms ... the last season we had the Grazing Bison logo and first season with the blue pants.

Buffalo at NY Jets ... 16-Dec-1973 ... Shea Stadium

I had been thinking lately as to how much I miss the early 80s and in the days when sleeves weren't cut short and both stripes & TV numbers could all fit on the sleeves. Cleveland's brown jerseys especially ... they looked so much better with the solid-brown-shoulders as did Buffalo with the solid royal blue.

Love this photo of Joe Cribbs, and those socks in 1981 would have been perfect for the blue away pants shown in the 1983 photo above, rather than the white home pants. The blue mask as I stated prior just didn't look all that great with the royal blue jersey, only with the white jersey, IMO. That's why I'm a proponent of the Bills gray face-mask. Cleveland's did look better with the white, so I can understand their gripe .. but the gray isn't all that bad, looks so 60s, their glory years.

Seems during this era the fad was having alot of white in their sock color to go with their white shoes ...

Buffalo at San Diego

'80 Divisional Playoffs

3-Jan-1981

BILLS at PATRIOTS

13-Dec-1981

* Looks like the Bills & Patriots shopped at the same outlet store and bought the same socks!!

30-Oct-1983

Houston Oilers at Cleveland

[CrazyAnna]

OMG, that is a beautiful uniform; head to toe. Why on Earth did they get rid of this look?

[ARTnSocal]

>>>

Now I can see why the vast majority of Browns fans have long been clamoring for the return of the orange pants.

8-Jan-1983

1982 Divisional playoffs

* strike-shortened season

Cleveland at Los Angeles Raiders

Raiders 27 - Browns 10

I especially like this rare photo below, taken the season before the AFL-NFL merger and Dallas in their old blue jerseys

The NFL clubs were wearing NFL-50 patches on their shoulder or upper sleeve.

Had the Browns won that NFL Championship game in Minnesota that season it would have been them playing KC in Super Bowl IV instead of the Vikes.

Dallas at Cleveland

2-Nov-1969

Browns 42 - Cowboys 10

[infrared41]

Gray facemasks are only a problem to some. To others it's aesthetically pleasing. So you can't argue that aspect as fact, because it's opinion.

Exactly. One of my biggest pet peeves about this place is when someone presents their entirely subjective opinion on a uniform design or element as indisputable fact. It drives me nuts.

[tBBP]

Welcome to the CCSLC, where everyone is right...and everyone else is wrong.

[infrared41]

Welcome to the CCSLC, where everyone is right...and everyone else is wrong.

And everyone else hates everything.

[tBBP]

Welcome to the CCSLC, where everyone is right...and everyone else is wrong.

And everyone else hates everything.

Hatin' is the national pasttime around here.

[andrewharrington]

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.

What you're dismissing here is that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with having neutral-colored piece of ancillary equipment. It might violate your own personal rules, but nowhere is there a steadfast rule. Some prefer a uniform that's heavier on neutrals than on team colors. Others like a uniform that's only team color, head to toe. Neither one is 'correct' from a visual standpoint, but each one says something completely different about the team that wears it.

I'm having trouble understanding how a design decision can be labeled 'lazy' if it perfectly conveys the exact message that the team wants it to. Isn't that like a math teacher saying, "Well, your solution is correct, and that's a legitimate method you used to solve the problem, but that's not the way I would have done it, so I took a few points off."

If gray is a neutral color, then black is also. Worth keeping that in mind.

Gray is by definition a neutral color (as is black and white), but gray is NOT the neutral color of a facemask. We need to get past this type of thinking because it's simply no longer true. Facemasks are ordered in the chosen color, they don't show up gray waiting to be painted.

Anyways, much of what we discuss here is opinion, and even when we discuss things like fundamentals and theories, those are still going to be debatable items.

I disagree. To me, gray is definitely the neutral color for a facemask. Either grey or that natural gum rubber color that was also used, but I'll take grey since it is a true chromatic neutral as well, and I think it looks better with more color schemes. Black is also a neutral color, but there's no hisotrical precedent for using a black facemask across the board, and you run the risk of creating some very bad color combinations when you use black as your neutral mask color.

If we're really going to pick the nits, facemasks do indeed start out grey. They are metal and are then dipped in a vinyl or rubber coating to color them.

[02Rover]

Grey masks, all the way, with the Browns. They look great, they arent an obnoxious clash and they fit with the old school nature of the city and fanbase. The unis dont have to be so ultra symetrical. I like the most of the grey masks teams have been using, especially the Browns.

[oldschoolvikings]

I don't see how you can make a blanket statement about whether or not gray masks work ... to me you have to go case by case.

There are currently 8 NFL teams wearing gray masks, and I think of them as falling into three categories.

The Giants, Cowboys, and Raiders get a pass from most people (most people who care, anyway) because they all have gray/silver as a color in the rest of their uniform.

The Browns, Colts, 49ers, and Bills have all switched to gray masks within the last 10 years or so, in what seems to be a branding decision (actually, the Giants probably fit into this category as much as the first one). The reasoning behind this has already been discussed in this thread previously, and (in theory) I have no problem with this.

That just leaves the Cards who, as far as anyone can tell, just basically wear a gray mask because they always have.

Personally, I'm fine with the gray mask on the Giants, Cowboys, Raiders, Browns, Colts, and 49ers. I think it works very well in each case with the overall traditional look of each uniform, and trying to picture alternative choices, in most cases, just looks weird to me.

IMO the Bills, though, do not get a pass on the "tradition / branding" excuse. The navy blue trim, the non-traditional helmet stripe, the logos on the jersey back and pants hip... you can't have it both ways. Their gray mask does not work.

And the Cardinals, wearing a modern uniform that practically screams "2005!" (its amazing to me how these uniforms, like the Vikings, the Falcons, the Bengals, etc... can seem both "mod" and completely dated at the same time) obviously should dump the gray mask for red or black yesterday. Or, better yet, redesign the uniform to something that works with a gray mask.

But there are teams with colored facemasks that stand out as being much worse to me than any of the gray mask teams. The Lions, Patriots, and Redskins would all better much better off with gray facemasks, instead of the extremely poor color choices they've made. I'd prefer they wore light blue, navy blue, and burgundy, respectively, but gray wouldn't stand out like the sore thumb colors they have now.