New Browns uni coming 2015

[shaydre1019]

I saw this while out at the mall. It's a Browns hat that has a Brown face mask. http://imgur.com/SxzXARw I'm on mobile now so I can't format the post. Not sure if this leads to anything but I have never seen something like this until today.

I remembered this post after seeing the Browns' new logo. Good find with the hat! I must say, it's pretty funny that what all of us thought was just an error turned out to be the new logo. XD

I saw this while out at the mall. It's a Browns hat that has a Brown face mask.

Well I think this was an error. Being that the new logo has a white outline on the mask (which I'm not a fan of)

Unless your post wasn't being completely serious in which case I apologize.

[razorback447]

Clevelandbrowns.com has a lot of orange, and brown is used as a secondary. I have a feeling we're getting another orange primary team.

But they ARE the Browns.

Not named after the color, come on we even have a PINNED topic on this, because it's SO important.

I think that regardless of the original meaning of the name, the fact is that the team name is a color, and it makes little sense for said team's primary color to be a color other than the color in its name.

Of course that principle is ignored all the time, particularly when a city is named Greenville or something else with a color in it.

That reminds me of a couple high schools in the area that have always bugged me.. Greenville HS (Red/Black) and Blue Ridge HS (Black/Red).. There's just something odd about it

We had a school in our conference when I was in high school that alway bothered me. Their name was the Green Forest Tigers and yet their school colors were red and white. So many colors that they could have used like green, black, yellow or orange and they choose red and white. It just never made sense to me.

[Mac the Knife]

Actual question for browns fans: how would you rank the moddell reign against the lerner/haslam era?

They're different levels of incompetence. One was so focused on putting a competent product on the field, yet totally incompetent in the business dealings necessary to sustain the organization. Lerner and Haslam by contrast are smart business-wise and seem to go out of their way to salve the wounds Modell left behind, but utterly incompetent with respect to putting good product on the field.

They're only the original Browns if you closed your eyes and put your hands over your ears going "lalala I can't hear you" between 1996 and 1999

There was actually a precedent for the Browns situation, and ironically, they didn't have to look far: the Cleveland (now St. Louis-on their way back to Los Angeles) Rams were part of the AFL in 1936. They defected to the NFL for 1937. For 1943, the team suspended operations due to players being drafted/volunteering to serve in World War II. The team resumed play the following year, but with a substantially different roster.

Granted it's a technicality, but the only difference between these situations was the duration of suspension of the franchise (3 years vs. 1) and that in conjunction with the suspension, a new franchise was created for Baltimore and Fart Modell, and given control of its player contracts in accordance with the NFL Constitution and Bylaws.

80 years later, do we refer to the current St. Louis team as the "second Rams," or the "expansion Rams?" No. And come 2075, odds are few will worry much about the semantics, technicalities, or anything else about the Browns/Fart Modell thing.

The NFL disgraced itself when it "transferred the history" (as though such a thing were possible in the world of reality) of the Browns/Ravens franchise to the expansion Browns. The appalling dishonesty of the whole matter continues to disgust.

With that act of pandering, the NFL set a terrible precedent which has left a toxic wake across the sports landscape, as evidenced by the San Jose Earthquakes and the Charlotte Hornets. And the next version of the Seattle SuperSonics will do further violence to actual history, making us all collectively a bit dumber still. So it's right that historically-minded people continue to complain about this travesty.

The most ridiculous part is that it was unnecessary to do this in order for Cleveland to have its Browns; the new team could still have been called the Browns without this ahistorical nonsense. The template was set in baseball: the expansion Washington Senators existed just fine without the Major Leagues "transferring the history" of the original Washington Senators after they had moved to Minnesota.

First... the NFL's hand was forced. The City of Cleveland and others had filed lawsuits out the wazoo over the Browns, and win or lose they were one judge's injuction away from blocking the whole thing and throwing the entire league's 1996 season into limbo. The settlement they made was the only way to salvage the situation.

Second... Fart Modell had every intention of taking the Browns name with him to Baltimore.

Third...

[Island_Style]

I know the Browns are named after a guy, but you can't blame people for not knowing that. There is not one iota of an element in their identity package that suggests that.

[missouri tigers]

this from BrandNew today - http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logos_for_the_cleveland_browns.php#.VO-acbPF_Vg

"The logos have been designed by Michael Irwin, Senior Designer at the NFL. Uniforms will be designed by Nike."

I can only assume this Michael Irwin is the nephew of Roger Goodell or something. I was thoroughly unimpressed by his Behance page and website.

[pianoknight]

I know the Browns are named after a guy, but you can't blame people for not knowing that. There is not one iota of an element in their identity package that suggests that.

Bingo.

I'm a big fan of sports aesthetics and history and I honestly had no clue they weren't named for the color. The Pixie logo at least attempted to convey this a bit.

[vmd9]

this from BrandNew today - http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logos_for_the_cleveland_browns.php#.VO-acbPF_Vg

"The logos have been designed by Michael Irwin, Senior Designer at the NFL. Uniforms will be designed by Nike."

I can only assume this Michael Irwin is the nephew of Roger Goodell or something. I was thoroughly unimpressed by his Behance page and website.

Agreed. People can bash Nike all they want. But I'm sure they could have designed some better options.

[hugevolsfan]

Anyway the Browns. I'm REALLY liking the new orange the more I see it. I'm also hating the brown facemask. I would still prefer grey, but I'm not sure if it would work with the new orange. White may have been the way to go. The brown just sticks out and competes with the orange shell.

I won't know this until I see an actual helmet. I think white facemasks are visually jarring, so that's out. I'm holding out hope that the brown works well.

I know we have different opinions but it blows my mind how someone could think the brown facemask does not look good.. It may even be the best option I would like white also... I do not think the brown competes with the orange I think it just compliments it.. I thought the gray competed because you could not find it elsewhere on the helmet so my eyes automatically went to it...

[JamieRose]

this from BrandNew today - http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logos_for_the_cleveland_browns.php#.VO-acbPF_Vg

"The logos have been designed by Michael Irwin, Senior Designer at the NFL. Uniforms will be designed by Nike."

I can only assume this Michael Irwin is the nephew of Roger Goodell or something. I was thoroughly unimpressed by his Behance page and website.

I give him serious credit, though, for answering comments on his Browns project on Behance. Even he alludes to the fact that he's not entirely happy with the route the Browns chose to take ("As I'm sure you know, the client makes the final call. At the end of the day, all that really counts is the one that got approved, rightfully so.")

It's not Nike, it's not the NFL, it's the Browns. They have all the direction and final say as an organization as to what their team looks like. If a client tells a good designer to make crap, and the client is paying the bills, the designer will sometimes have to eat their pride and all good judgement for that paycheck.

High-profile clients often (and I mean often) have terrible ideas. As a designer you have to do your best to work with what you're given. You can only polish a turd so much, and even when you do, all you end up with is a shiny turd. I think that's what we have here. The Browns appeared to give terrible direction, and were presented many different concepts "One of which included modernizing the helmet."

The Browns, at ANY point, could have rejected what we're seeing now and gone with something different. They didn't. This is on the Browns, not the designer.

[MJWalker45]

Clevelandbrowns.com has a lot of orange, and brown is used as a secondary. I have a feeling we're getting another orange primary team.

It was like that last year as well. I wouldn't read too much into the web site.

[MJWalker45]

Clevelandbrowns.com has a lot of orange, and brown is used as a secondary. I have a feeling we're getting another orange primary team.

But they ARE the Browns.

Not named after the color, come on we even have a PINNED topic on this, because it's SO important.

I think that regardless of the original meaning of the name, the fact is that the team name is a color, and it makes little sense for said team's primary color to be a color other than the color in its name.

Of course that principle is ignored all the time, particularly when a city is named Greenville or something else with a color in it.

Or Ottawa RedBlacks

[CLEstones]

Although gray is the better option for the facemask - especially now since gray is being added to the color pallet - brown definitely does NOT compete with the orange helmet. Unlike the white facemask, the eye still naturally gravitates towards the orange shell and not the brown facemask. The real focal point has yet to be determined on the field. In logo form, the white facemask was somewhat distracting, but on field, it was completely the focal point of the helmet. For the most part, the facemask should be a darker or more neutral color than the shell.

Now, the following is taken from the behance website:

At the bottom, there is a white jersey with orange numerals. I thought for sure the brown jersey would have the orange numerals. But from the looks of it, the white uniform will have orange numbers.

I hate this. I hate when the uniforms aren't consistent between home and away. If you are going to use orange numbers on white, use it on brown. If you are going to use the away color on the home jersey, then you should use the home color on the away jersey... not a third color.

[bowld]

Nike loves to play with neon and to me this shade of Orange is almost a neon/bright orange. I fully expect Nike to use this color as often and as much as possible

[TheOldRoman]

They show orange numbers on white, but it also shows the numbers in brown on a white background. So who knows what we'll get. I wouldn't be surprised to see more orange, just because Nike. Also, those numbers, like the wordmark, are horrible and a complete time capsule of mid-'10s. They'll look horribly dated in three years.

[Jezus_Ghoti]

Although gray is the better option for the facemask - especially now since gray is being added to the color pallet - brown definitely does NOT compete with the orange helmet. Unlike the white facemask, the eye still naturally gravitates towards the orange shell and not the brown facemask. The real focal point has yet to be determined on the field. In logo form, the white facemask was somewhat distracting, but on field, it was completely the focal point of the helmet. For the most part, the facemask should be a darker or more neutral color than the shell.

Now, the following is taken from the behance website:

At the bottom, there is a white jersey with orange numerals. I thought for sure the brown jersey would have the orange numerals. But from the looks of it, the white uniform will have orange numbers.

I hate this. I hate when the uniforms aren't consistent between home and away. If you are going to use orange numbers on white, use it on brown. If you are going to use the away color on the home jersey, then you should use the home color on the away jersey... not a third color.

Also shows a white jersey with brown numbers.

We also know this designer did the logo but Nike is doing the uniforms. I wouldn't read much into those block numbers.

[Evil Doctor]

I know the Browns are named after a guy, but you can't blame people for not knowing that. There is not one iota of an element in their identity package that suggests that.

It's one of those trivia things that ultimately has no bearing on the design choices and only matters to the most pedantic.

[CLEstones]

Also, those numbers, like the wordmark, are horrible and a complete time capsule of mid-'10s. They'll look horribly dated in three years.

How do you figure? The font is still a basic block font, with just a little bit of character. I would argue that it will look less dated compared to the recent trends since 2000. A few that come to mind:

• Arizona - Basic block fonts, but with pointed serifs
• Atlanta - Basic block fonts, but with pointed serifs
• Baltimore - Their entire font
• Carolina - Their entire font
• Detroit - Italic, rounded, weird interior serifs
• Jacksonville - Their entire font
• Miami - Their new Miami Vice font
• New England - Pointed serifs in the middle of the letters
• Philadelphia - Their nonsense wordmark
• Tampa Bay - Arena league font, but works with their nickname
• Tennessee - Bevel, half rounded half block

This list doesn't include Denver or Kansas City, which are debatable. Kansas City looks incredibly dated with the italic block... but I wouldn't say its terrible. Oakland and New York (G) also look dated, but just because they are older, people accept them for being something better than what they are. I would contend that those fonts are all way more a victim of the times compared to the new Browns font.

[WSU151]

NM - thought CLEStones was talking number font, not wordmark

[TheOldRoman]

Also, those numbers, like the wordmark, are horrible and a complete time capsule of mid-'10s. They'll look horribly dated in three years.

How do you figure? The font is still a basic block font, with just a little bit of character. I would argue that it will look less dated compared to the recent trends since 2000. A few that come to mind:

• Arizona - Basic block fonts, but with pointed serifs
• Atlanta - Basic block fonts, but with pointed serifs
• Baltimore - Their entire font
• Carolina - Their entire font
• Detroit - Italic, rounded, weird interior serifs
• Jacksonville - Their entire font
• Miami - Their new Miami Vice font
• New England - Pointed serifs in the middle of the letters
• Philadelphia - Their nonsense wordmark
• Tampa Bay - Arena league font, but works with their nickname
• Tennessee - Bevel, half rounded half block

This list doesn't include Denver or Kansas City, which are debatable. Kansas City looks incredibly dated with the italic block... but I wouldn't say its terrible. Oakland and New York (G) also look dated, but just because they are older, people accept them for being something better than what they are. I would contend that those fonts are all way more a victim of the times compared to the new Browns font.

Specifically the "Hey, it's a rounded block font except for these random angles we place arbitrarily." None of the wordmarks you mentioned are in discussion for datedness. Carolina's old font would have been (although I loved it), but a '90s font made sense for them since they started play in the '90s.

[canzman]

this from BrandNew today - http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logos_for_the_cleveland_browns.php#.VO-acbPF_Vg

"The logos have been designed by Michael Irwin, Senior Designer at the NFL. Uniforms will be designed by Nike."

you can see what Michael has on behance here, which includes numbers . . . https://www.behance.net/gallery/23919611/Cleveland-Browns-Rebrand-2015

there's some good info he posted in the comments, including this:

"Just a quick note on the dog. The goal of the team with this mark was to target the younger generation. The previous Dawg Pound dated back quite a while and they wanted it to appeal to new fans as well. The Browns intent was to have a youthful, dynamic, and less menacing dog. That's just a little background to the "approachable with an attitude" feel for the new brand"

So it looks like we've got ourselves our number font? If so, count me pleasantly surprised. Am I the only one here thinking that the "bolder departure" referred to is that the primary uniform color will be that red-orange?

My money says that isn't the number font for the uniforms. They have kept everything about the uniforms so under wraps that I don't think they would even let this out if it was what would be used on the uniforms.