New Browns uni coming 2015

[SG30]

Can't name a single one of 'em.

(Where's Johnny? Thought he completed rehab.)

Texas Rangers game, pics all over the place, I'm sure it'll make SportsCenter.

Because what better way to treat a guy right out of rehab than putting a camera right on him the day after.

[Xist2inspire]

I love these. Not perfect, as Nike always has these one or two elements in their redesigns that leave you scratching their heads. But overall I do think these are an upgrade over the previous set. I know the previous set had tradition an all that, but sometimes certain traditions just need to die because they aren't working. The old set looked old, not classic to me. At least the brown jersey. It looked like a team from the 60's. It wasn't a timeliness design for me like the Bears, Packers, Colts. Just my .02.

This is one interesting thing about this thread. I think we have every possible viepoint on uniforms in here. This is the first I've heard of someone who didn't consider the Browns look a classic who wasn't a "there are no classics" type.

Not criticizing you. Just observing an example of a new opinion on uniforms I encountered on this threads.

My only disagreement with you is that, in my opinion, tradition always works and is better because it is tradition.

I have theories as to why I think this way, but won't go into them (would involve talking politics and religion).

Funny, I'm kinda the opposite. While I understand the value of tradition, I've learned from personal experience that holding on to tradition for tradition's sake alone often leads to constant stupidity, repeated mistakes, stagnation, then death. I prefer to aim for a balance between the traditional and modern extremes, and look at everything, new and old, with a critical eye. Nothing's perfect, nothing's sacred and thus forever set in stone. Things need a reason to exist, and "just because" is often a terrible reason. And there's way too much "just because" going around in sports design today IMO, on both modern and traditional ends of the spectrum.

[TheOldRoman]

Wow. I normally get angry about some of this Nike Adidas trash, but I couldn't even get mad. I just laughed. Sorry, Cleveland fans. You've put up with so much, and now you have this. I'm genuinely sorry. These are instantly bottom third in football, at very best. So, here's my arbitrary ranking system, including a few categories I added.

Sleeve stripes 8/10 - I wish they'd do all the way to the seam instead of cutting off and turning up. It's actually an interesting idea for football uniforms.

Numbers 4/10 - The font itself is bad, but these are mostly awful because the numbers are orange on the brown and white jerseys, which is an affront to Browns' history along with looking bad or illegible

Colors 10/10 - My desire to see a lighter brown is mostly covered by Nike's ultra-matte, faded looking materials. There's no gray anyway, so the colors are great.

Pants 1/10 - I literally can't think of a way to make the pants worse. If they had no stripes and just the wordmark? Eh, wouldn't be any less complete. This is utter garbage, and the foremost example of how Nike just couldn't stop themselves. They started this truncating pants stripes garbage in college about five years back. Just an absolutely atrocious feature, particularly when the uniforms are so heavy on stripes. Top half of the pants says NFL, bottom half says Adidas MAC school.

Helmet 8/10 - The brown facemask looks bad. The textured stripe is meh.

Socks 3/10 - They shouldn't have orange socks. Ever. That the Bengals thing, and all they should ever wear. The brown socks are going to lead to a lot of awful leotard games with the brown pants. Furthermore, with a uniform so content on STRIPES! that they put three big freaking stripes wrapping around the chest, maybe they could have seen the value of having stripes on the socks? Too much sense.

Color usage 2/10 - We're presumably getting monochrome brown at home and monochrome white on the road. Then for a bonus, we'll get head to ankle orange twice a year. Add in the orange numbers on the brown and white jerseys, and these just look bad.

Accents 3/10 - The contrasting stitching is bad in general, awful when intersecting jersey stripes, and horrible when appearing on one out of six jersey elements. The chest wordmark is amateurish in general, but even more so with the color balance of it. And of course, the chest wordmark isn't the same as the pants wordmark on the orange.

Logos 1/10 - There's no excuse for them not coming up with an actual logo.

Fit for Browns 4/10 - Literally every element is a downgrade from the previous set. They honestly look like a mid major school. Orange numbers home and road is awful. These jerseys just don't look like the Browns. They could have been a bigger departure from what the Browns should be if they came out with a Bucs/Jags hybrid, but these are still bad. The guy who said these are like the previous Bills set is dead on. Just many things going on, yet still half assed.

So, there are some respectable parts, but a lot is bad. 44/100 in my opinion.

[Sodboy13]

Looking at the closeup of the jersey in the Nikespeak flyer - are the numbers on the authentic jerseys screened twill, as opposed to sewn layers? If so, I'm sure it reduces weight by 1.4% or something.

These uniforms are overthought, overwrought trash, but whatever - I don't watch football anymore except for the Super Bowl, so it's not like I'm ever going to have to see these uniforms in action.

[Cleveland Fan]

NFL on top, MAC on the bottom.

The Browns pants. The mullet of football pants.

Looking at the closeup of the jersey in the Nikespeak flyer - are the numbers on the authentic jerseys screened twill, as opposed to sewn layers? If so, I'm sure it reduces weight by 1.4% or something.

These uniforms are overthought, overwrought trash, but whatever - I don't watch football anymore except for the Super Bowl, so it's not like I'm ever going to have to see these uniforms in action.

There's always highlights of a conference champion playing the Browns being shown during the pregame.

[Xist2inspire]

Okay, someone's gotta explain to me how this can even be mentioned in the same breath as the Bills' navy over-piped monstrosities, a set that many on here agree is one of the worst of all-time, if not the worst. I understand that it's not quite on the level of the old set. I understand that the pants are a hot mess. But 2000's Bills bad? Come on now, that's a level of fail that only Tampa Bay has managed to reach.

[Cosmic]

Looking at the closeup of the jersey in the Nikespeak flyer - are the numbers on the authentic jerseys screened twill, as opposed to sewn layers? If so, I'm sure it reduces weight by 1.4% or something.

These uniforms are overthought, overwrought trash, but whatever - I don't watch football anymore except for the Super Bowl, so it's not like I'm ever going to have to see these uniforms in action.

The numbers are Nike Chainmaille™ fabric.

[Lee Noire]

Wow. They were so damn close to making something really nice here. The helmet is nice, the jerseys look good (more on that in a second) and they have orange pants for better color balance. The design on the pants however just screw everything up. The quarter length stripe/wordmark thing just shouldn't exist. If they run the stripe all the way down I'd call these a modern home run, but instead it falls flat.

Going back to the jerseys, I really don't mind the stitching anymore. Seeing it on players made it work for me, and it doesn't stick out as much as in those leak photos. I might be drinking the Volt flavored Kool-aid, but that stitching does make the jerseys look a bit rugged (see: blue collar) like it did for the Outlaws western look. They put a lot of sugar in that kool-aid, forgive me.

Overall I really like this, but I hope that pants thing gets sorted out in the future.

[j'villejags]

Well these definitely could have been a lot worse. I'm a Nike homer but I have to admit it's a shame new NFL designs are considered successful because... Well, at least they aren't as bad as the Jags or Bucs.

They didn't hit this out of the park but I do think certain combinations have the potential to look sharp. The look will probably grow on me a bit more when the season starts, as I think they should look better on the field than they did on stage. It'll just depend on what combinations they tend to wear. I'd still have preferred something a little cleaner though. There were several things they could have done better for my tastes.

I'm really not feeling the sleeve stripes. It's probably my least favorite part of the uniform. The way they protrude so far inward seems like one of those "because we can" design elements that doesn't really serve a purpose. It's too thick and ends abruptly. It looks like it's just left there hanging. I think it might look better if it was thinner or at least had been tapered down.

The stitching will be hard to see from a distance but it still takes away from the look. It adds a bit of warmth to the brown jersey that isn't necessary. Not to mention it just looks tacky to me.

Maybe it's the lighting, but the orange doesn't quite pop like I had hoped it would; particularly the numbers with the material they used. It gets a pass on the white jersey but there needed to be more contrast on the brown jersey. White numbers with an orange shadow would have been the way to go for the brown jersey.

I don't mind the Cleveland wordmark but it does push the numbers lower than they should be. The numbers look a bit awkward on the front of the jersey. Especially on the smaller and shorter players.

The "Browns down the leg" thing is an embarrassing gaffe. Not to mention it looks amateurish.

The carbon stripe and the extra glossy face mask seem out of place. I don't mind the face mask being brown, but the shine doesn't really fit with anything else in this set.

The base helmet finish is interesting. It reminds me of the old school helmets. It doesn't strike me as a satin finish but I don't know that I'd call it gloss either. It seems to fall somewhere in between.

I'd have welcomed a subtle update of this look:

[Josh.0]

I hate the orange numbers on the brown jerseys; They should be white.

I concur. It just looks forced IMO. I am not sure what my opinion is on the pants yet ... I want to like them. But, I don't know?

[infrared41]

It seems that a lot of the "fixes" being proposed here would basically make the new uniforms the old uniforms with two less sleeve stripes and a brown facemask.

For example:

• The jerseys seem to be a hit but a lot of us don't like the orange numbers. The suggested fix is the Browns should have stuck with white numbers on the brown and orange jerseys and brown numbers on the white jersey.
• The reaction to the Cleveland wordmark has been lukewarm at best. The fix? Remove it.
• The orange pants seem to be a hit but I think it's safe to say that the majority of us would prefer removal of the Browns wordmark and replacing it with the stripe.
• It's also safe to say that the majority would like to see the Browns wordmark removed and replaced with the stripe on both the brown and the white pants.
• The removal of the sock stripes has been brought up as well.

So when it's all said an done, the look that seems like it would please the most of us would be similar to this but with the current sleeve and pants stripes and a brown facemask...

So what was the point of updating again?

[H11K]

I was so excited to see what the uniforms were going to be and then…. It happened. Disappointment in a nutshell.

[IceCap]

Okay, someone's gotta explain to me how this can even be mentioned in the same breath as the Bills' navy over-piped monstrosities, a set that many on here agree is one of the worst of all-time, if not the worst. I understand that it's not quite on the level of the old set. I understand that the pants are a hot mess. But 2000's Bills bad? Come on now, that's a level of fail that only Tampa Bay has managed to reach.

I'd say the current Jags, Chargers, Cardinals, Falcons, and Bengals are right up there with the Bucs when it comes to being 2000s Bills bad (love that term by the way).

Anyway I can see the similarities if you break each uniform down to its individual elements, but I agree. It's nowhere near as bad. I'm definitely in the "it could have been a lot worse" camp. There are even aspects I genuinely like. They're not bad. That doesn't make them good, either.

And you said it yourself. They're not on par with what came before. If you change uniforms and what came before is better? You've dropped the ball.

Funny, I'm kinda the opposite. While I understand the value of tradition, I've learned from personal experience that holding on to tradition for tradition's sake alone often leads to constant stupidity, repeated mistakes, stagnation, then death. I prefer to aim for a balance between the traditional and modern extremes, and look at everything, new and old, with a critical eye. Nothing's perfect, nothing's sacred and thus forever set in stone. Things need a reason to exist, and "just because" is often a terrible reason. And there's way too much "just because" going around in sports design today IMO, on both modern and traditional ends of the spectrum.

I've never seen "just because" used to justify tradition. The traditional looks that have endured to the present have done so for one tangible reason or another. The "just because" justification almost always comes from the extreme modern camp. "Why change this classic look?" "Because it's stagnant!" "What makes it stagnant?" "It's old!"

And the thing is, I like a fair amount of modern designs. I think the Arizona Cardinals and Seattle Seahawks have logos that far surpass the older versions they replaced. I prefer everything about the Pats' current set to the Pat the Patriot uniforms. I loved the previous Tampa Bay set, which many (myself included) called a modern classic. The St. Louis Rams, Tennessee Titans, Philadelphia Eagles, Houston Texans, and Baltimore Ravens (certain combos at least)? All great modern looks in my opinion.

The Phoenix Suns' 1992-2000 uniform set, a set so 90s you can almost smell the Surge and xtreme flavoured Cheetos, is one of my favourite sports uniforms of all time.

So I agree with your premise that modern aesthetics have a place in the conversation. There should be a balance. I prefer tradition, but modern can, and does, work. So what's the problem? It's as I said. I've seen too many cases of "just because" from the modern side of things. Arguments in favour of change for no other reason then something has been around for a while. Claiming that you can only like a traditional look if you're over 35. Claiming right off the bat that it's no use trying to understand traditionalists (an example of which can be found in this very thread). And other similar nonsense.

I'd like nothing better then to be able to have a balanced conversation where we can discuss the merits of traditional and modernist design elements. I've tried to have that conversation. Problem is all the loudest people on one side just aren't interested in meeting halfway.

[Cleveland Fan]

I could live with some of the modern design elements (the stripe angle, the textures), but the jersey wordmark is tolerable at best and the pants wordmark is a disaster.

[DeFrank]

The contrasting stitching and decision to use the BROWNS pant wordmark PLUS a short stripe are the two things I don't like. Without those, this would be Nike's best rebrand, mostly due to consistency. Also... orange socks with brown pants please. Lets not screw this up.

[JH360]

The pants are my favorite part.

Browns don't have a logo so instead used their wordmark. I'm fine with that.

It's interesting; I assume most in here are graphic oriented. I'm a visual artist, mostly paint, but often other mediums. I don't know if that's the difference or not, but I like seeing them do something different.

Nope. It's been pointed out that we have many artists and graphic designers here who see the value in tradition. Being a "visual artist" isn't the reason you like these.

And no, not everyone here is "graphic oriented." I haven't taken an art class since high school and every single concept I've made has been done in MS Paint.

The whole mentality just comes off as smug. If you like the new look, cool. All the power to you. It's not because you're an artist though. Not only has the premise been proven false but the premise itself reeks of an undeserved sense of superiority. "No wonder the rabble doesn't like it. They aren't artistic like I am."

Fair enough. I'm not really familiar with these boards enough to know who's all here and it's presumptuous of me speculate.

So I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, I'm much more about capturing a good feel in a look than having things appropriately spaced, colored and aligned. I absolutely think that's why I dig the pants where the majority here despises them.

Sure, there's more to it, such as cultural background, age, so forth, but in my short time lurking and posting here, I've seen plenty a design ripped apart for not being arranged accordingly by the numbers.

Where it seems like most think the pants are the anchor, I think they're just different and bold enough to elevate the whole thing into something really unique for a pro uniform and appropriate for the only NFL squad without a true logo.

[j'villejags]

It seems that a lot of the "fixes" being proposed here would basically make the new uniforms the old uniforms with two less sleeve stripes and a brown facemask.

For example:

• The jerseys seem to be a hit but a lot of us don't like the orange numbers. The suggested fix is the Browns should have stuck with white numbers on the brown and orange jerseys and brown numbers on the white jersey.
• The reaction to the Cleveland wordmark has been lukewarm at best. The fix? Remove it.
• The orange pants seem to be a hit but I think it's safe to say that the majority of us would prefer removal of the Browns wordmark and replacing it with the stripe.
• It's also safe to say that the majority would like to see the Browns wordmark removed and replaced with the stripe on both the brown and the white pants.
• The removal of the sock stripes has been brought up as well.

So when it's all said an done, the look that seems like it would please the most of us would be similar to this but with the current sleeve and pants stripes and a brown facemask...

So what was the point of updating again?

Yeah, pretty much.

I really like the idea of O/B/O and O/W/O being the standard home/away sets for Cleveland, even though I'm a little disappointed with the brown jersey. I actually think the orange jersey is the best of the bunch. So I also like the O/O/B and O/O/W combinations for that reason.

From the design perspective, it just seems like they over-thought the objective and got cute with the process by over-designing what should have been a simple and clean modernization of a classic look.

[martymcfry]

I'm just seeing them now, and honestly it's better than I expected. But still the orange-on-orange is pretty bad...

[BJ Sands]

I wonder how long the orange numbers last on the brown jerseys. Those are very hard to read.

Other than that - and the infamous pants - these are pretty good.

[Xist2inspire]

It seems that a lot of the "fixes" being proposed here would basically make the new uniforms the old uniforms with two less sleeve stripes and a brown facemask.

For example:

• The jerseys seem to be a hit but a lot of us don't like the orange numbers. The suggested fix is the Browns should have stuck with white numbers on the brown and orange jerseys and brown numbers on the white jersey.
• The reaction to the Cleveland wordmark has been lukewarm at best. The fix? Remove it.
• The orange pants seem to be a hit but I think it's safe to say that the majority of us would prefer removal of the Browns wordmark and replacing it with the stripe.
• It's also safe to say that the majority would like to see the Browns wordmark removed and replaced with the stripe on both the brown and the white pants.
• The removal of the sock stripes has been brought up as well.

So when it's all said an done, the look that seems like it would please the most of us would be similar to this but with the current sleeve and pants stripes and a brown facemask...

So what was the point of updating again?

And what'd be wrong with that if they did?

There's nothing wrong with slightly updating an old look. There's always something that can be improved upon, even if it's minor. Shoot, that's how "modern classics" are created. Something like the Toronto Blue Jays set would never have been created had they just looked at the set it was inspired by and said, "Yeah, let's just go with that full-stop, why update?" I mean, isn't constantly searching for improvement, no matter how small, a huge part of the design process and design in general? Yeah, it would've strongly resembled the old set had the Browns made those changes. Big deal, there's no shame in that. If anything, it'd be a testament to the strength of the original design.

That's probably why Nike, Adidas, etc. feel like they can come in and make these crazy changes (and why teams go along with it), because few really see the value in a good, sensible update anymore. Most will look at it and go, "why even change then?" So then in order to "justify" change, teams go to stupid lengths to stand out and be "different," which 95% of the time leads to people saying "why did you change this, so dumb" and "just go back to what you had." It's a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't self-defeating practice that doesn't do one lick of good, and actually encourages bad decisions and trend-hopping.

Okay, someone's gotta explain to me how this can even be mentioned in the same breath as the Bills' navy over-piped monstrosities, a set that many on here agree is one of the worst of all-time, if not the worst. I understand that it's not quite on the level of the old set. I understand that the pants are a hot mess. But 2000's Bills bad? Come on now, that's a level of fail that only Tampa Bay has managed to reach.

I'd say the current Jags, Chargers, Cardinals, Falcons, and Bengals are right up there with the Bucs when it comes to being 2000s Bills bad (love that term by the way).

Anyway I can see the similarities if you break each uniform down to its individual elements, but I agree. It's nowhere near as bad. I'm definitely in the "it could have been a lot worse" camp. There are even aspects I genuinely like. They're not bad. That doesn't make them good, either.

And you said it yourself. They're not on par with what came before. If you change uniforms and what came before is better? You've dropped the ball.

Funny, I'm kinda the opposite. While I understand the value of tradition, I've learned from personal experience that holding on to tradition for tradition's sake alone often leads to constant stupidity, repeated mistakes, stagnation, then death. I prefer to aim for a balance between the traditional and modern extremes, and look at everything, new and old, with a critical eye. Nothing's perfect, nothing's sacred and thus forever set in stone. Things need a reason to exist, and "just because" is often a terrible reason. And there's way too much "just because" going around in sports design today IMO, on both modern and traditional ends of the spectrum.

I've never seen "just because" used to justify tradition. The traditional looks that have endured to the present have done so for one tangible reason or another. The "just because" justification almost always comes from the extreme modern camp. "Why change this classic look?" "Because it's stagnant!" "What makes it stagnant?" "It's old!"

And the thing is, I like a fair amount of modern designs. I think the Arizona Cardinals and Seattle Seahawks have logos that far surpass the older versions they replaced. I prefer everything about the Pats' current set to the Pat the Patriot uniforms. I loved the previous Tampa Bay set, which many (myself included) called a modern classic. The St. Louis Rams, Tennessee Titans, Philadelphia Eagles, Houston Texans, and Baltimore Ravens (certain combos at least)? All great modern looks in my opinion.

The Phoenix Suns' 1992-2000 uniform set, a set so 90s you can almost smell the Surge and xtreme flavoured Cheetos, is one of my favourite sports uniforms of all time.

So I agree with your premise that modern aesthetics have a place in the conversation. There should be a balance. I prefer tradition, but modern can, and does, work. So what's the problem? It's as I said. I've seen too many cases of "just because" from the modern side of things. Arguments in favour of change for no other reason then something has been around for a while. Claiming that you can only like a traditional look if you're over 35. Claiming right off the bat that it's no use trying to understand traditionalists (an example of which can be found in this very thread). And other similar nonsense.

I'd like nothing better then to be able to have a balanced conversation where we can discuss the merits of traditional and modernist design elements. I've tried to have that conversation. Problem is all the loudest people on one side just aren't interested in meeting halfway.

You'll get no argument from me that they dropped the ball. I was just responding to some of the knee-jerk reaction that these are "2000's Bills bad." Let's call a spade a spade and save the overreaction for another, more fitting time. It's a downgrade, but not a total disaster. Just adding a full stripe to the pants bumps this up from "ugly" to "meh." There's no such quick fix for something that's on the level of the 2000's Bills.

Haha, I know we've had this conversation before. My experience is a little different from yours, I've caught the "just because" excuse from both sides, and I'm talking in life as well as design. And it comes in many forms, this thread has displayed examples of both. I will say, though, that the modern arguments tend to lean toward the dumber/brash/confrontational end of the spectrum. On the other hand, the traditional arguments are usually calmer, subtler, well-thought-out, and reasonable. Yet, they both often display the same rigid line of thought. In real life, it's kind of like a person who holds fast to the "way things should be" often being as closeminded as the flighty free-thinker who just wants to let it all hang loose. I know you're not like that*, but it's more than possible for that to happen, and both sides to be at fault. Likewise, you could also end up being the only sane voice in the madhouse. Doesn't always mean you have to give up and leave the house to burn. Side note, I don't know how I'm typing these words, I've never considered any form of optimism to be one of my strong suits AT ALL.

*For what it's worth, you, McCarthy, and OldSchoolVikings have consistently made posts that I personally have found helpful and informative, and have helped me to examine further, and pay closer attention to, the values of traditional design. The three of you have also inspired me to give a lot of thought to at what exact point do modern designs go wrong, what is indeed "doing too much". So you've at least done that, without it even being your intent.