New Browns uni coming 2015

[infrared41]

Not sure what people are looking at when they say the white facemask over the gray. The gray is better. End of discussion. Its a better visual.

Also, I don't understand the people who think the Browns' white on white look is a good look. It looks terrible. It looks like old long john underpants. The white shirts need contrasting pants... either orange or brown.

End of discussion.

that*.

*I would have said you, but I don't want to get in trouble.

[panthers_2012]

IMO, I don't want the Browns to jump on the crappy uniform bandwagon. I think the orange pants wouldn't look bad, but I'm not a fan. If they keep the brown pants, my only suggestion is to add the stripe down them like the other pants. But I'm afraid that Nike will screw this up.

[dennisbergan]

The all white browns uniforms with brown/orange striped socks is one of the worst looks in all of football. Right up there with the equally inane Jets all whites with green striped socks.

Like others have said, the Browns should have put a lighter to their threads in 1999 and started anew (because they were actually a EXPANSION franchise). They have just put off for 15 years what should have been done long ago.

I actually think the Browns (with help from Nike and NFL Properties) have a great chance to make brown/orange/grey/white work and work well and make them look like a 21st century team. Looking forward to what they come up with and glad the old era uniforms are finally gone.

[CLEstones]

Not sure what people are looking at when they say the white facemask over the gray. The gray is better. End of discussion. Its a better visual.

Also, I don't understand the people who think the Browns' white on white look is a good look. It looks terrible. It looks like old long john underpants. The white shirts need contrasting pants... either orange or brown.

End of discussion.

that*.

*I would have said you, but I don't want to get in trouble.

Lol no big deal.

It's a visual thing. It's an eye test. White facemask looks bad to the eyes. The white on white looks bad to the eyes. It doesn't have anything to do with classic and vintage, or uniform "rules" it strictly has to do with the eye test. Those two aspects don't look as good as the other options.

[infrared41]

The all white browns uniforms with brown/orange striped socks is one of the worst looks in all of football. Right up there with the equally inane Jets all whites with green striped socks.

Like others have said, the Browns should have put a lighter to their threads in 1999 and started anew (because they were actually a EXPANSION franchise). They have just put off for 15 years what should have been done long ago.

I actually think the Browns (with help from Nike and NFL Properties) have a great chance to make brown/orange/grey/white work and work well and make them look like a 21st century team. Looking forward to what they come up with and glad the old era uniforms are finally gone.

My biggest concern is that the Browns will come up with something you like.

[BBTV]

Because the all-white looks good and so many Browns fans agree that it's their Definitive Look, so I try to defer to them. Orange-brown-orange-brown at home satisfies my weird thing about alternating colors when possible. Granted, orange-white-orange-white would, too, but I don't think orange pants look as good with their white jerseys and socks as white pants do. I have the same problem with the Bears wearing navy pants. All white feels more "complete," dark helmet notwithstanding, while the navy pants seem to be kind of floating between white.

I don't think brown pants fit into the picture anywhere.

But shouldn't a road uniform be as reflective of the primary look as possible? For example, the Steelers have colored pants at home, so they simply swap out the black for white jerseys but keep everything else the same. This should be the case with the silver/gold helmeted teams as well (except that the Saints mix black pants with the gold, and the Panthers are dummies). The Bears (among others) have white pants at home, so they shift the color from the jersey to the pants (and the white from the pants to the jersey).

It would seem to me that if you wear colored pants at home, you should wear colored pants on the road (though not necessarily the same color). If Cleveland's home set is O-B-O, then their road should ideally be O-W-B (to have each primary color represented at least once), or O-W-O (to do a simple swap of B for W). Going O-W-W just makes it look so... "cold" next to the colorful home uniform.

[Gothamite]

Yes, ideally the road look should be the same as the home with a jersey swap.

For teams with white pants, that's always going to result in a monochrome, but I can't think of a single instance where I think the all-white is inferior to colored pants. At worst, it's a wash.

So O-B-O should become O-W-O. I have no problem with O-B-W becoming O-W-W on the road, especially if that W jersey has B numbers. I think it's infinitely preferable than adding a pointless extra set of pants just to put the primary color back in there.

[The_Admiral]

But shouldn't a road uniform be as reflective of the primary look as possible? For example, the Steelers have colored pants at home, so they simply swap out the black for white jerseys but keep everything else the same. This should be the case with the silver/gold helmeted teams as well (except that the Saints mix black pants with the gold, and the Panthers are dummies). The Bears (among others) have white pants at home, so they shift the color from the jersey to the pants (and the white from the pants to the jersey).

Normally, I would agree with you, and if I were starting a team from scratch, I would listen to you. What I liked so much about the original Texans uniform was that they had navy pants on the road with red socks to match the red numbers on the white jerseys. I thought that was pretty sharp. But the Browns get to have some idiosyncrasies grandfathered in because they're the Browns. (Goddamn Giants don't even wear blue on the road anymore.) The Browns have worn all-white for so long, often at home, that it's as much a primary look in and of itself as the perfect Kardiac Kids set. Sure, it's cold, like you said, but football is cold, and it's not as if the Browns have ever been particularly glitzy.

I don't like the Steelers' yellow pants on the road, for whatever it's worth. It works for the Packers because it matches the helmet right down to the stripes, but I've never liked it on the Steelers. I'd rather see black or white.

[BrianLion]

The Packers' uniforms were once marred by decades of losing. Fortunately they didn't listen to the "change them now" crowd.

Not even close. The Packers were mediocre in the 70's and pretty bad for most of the 80's but that's about it.

[BBTV]

and early '90s. When Reggie White signed there and said that god told him to, everyone was laughing and was like "I guess god doesn't want to ever see him win", or "guess he doesn't want to play in to January anymore". They were kind of a joke.

[Gothamite]

A huge joke.

The Packers could have said "We need new uniforms to erase the stink of losing." Heck, they did. Fortunately Ron Wolf reconsidered.

[MDGP]

Yeah, six winning seasons and two playoff appearances between 1968 and 1992 is a little more than mediocre.

[TheOldRoman]

A huge joke.

The Packers could have said "We need new uniforms to erase the stink of losing." Heck, they did. Fortunately Ron Wolf reconsidered.

I thought you liked the proposed set and lamented that they Packers didn't switch to it, saying that it would have been right to have the Packers' third championship era come in a new color set?

[Jungle Jim]

But shouldn't a road uniform be as reflective of the primary look as possible? For example, the Steelers have colored pants at home, so they simply swap out the black for white jerseys but keep everything else the same. This should be the case with the silver/gold helmeted teams as well (except that the Saints mix black pants with the gold, and the Panthers are dummies). The Bears (among others) have white pants at home, so they shift the color from the jersey to the pants (and the white from the pants to the jersey).

I don't like the Steelers' yellow pants on the road, for whatever it's worth. It works for the Packers because it matches the helmet right down to the stripes, but I've never liked it on the Steelers. I'd rather see black or white.

The Steelers' pairing of the yellow pants with the black helmet and white jersey has always annoyed me, too. For the most part, football pants should either be white or match the helmet in color (and preferably striping pattern, as well, if feasible and applicable).

You may remember it, but we had a discussion about them (and the Giants and their gray pants) a couple years ago, including some Steelers Photoshops...

http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/90488-worst-white-uniforms-in-sports/page-3

[infrared41]

A huge joke.

The Packers could have said "We need new uniforms to erase the stink of losing." Heck, they did. Fortunately Ron Wolf reconsidered.

I thought you liked the proposed set and lamented that they Packers didn't switch to it, saying that it would have been right to have the Packers' third championship era come in a new color set?

Maybe Gothamite reconsidered too.

[Gothamite]

A huge joke.

The Packers could have said "We need new uniforms to erase the stink of losing." Heck, they did. Fortunately Ron Wolf reconsidered.

I thought you liked the proposed set and lamented that they Packers didn't switch to it, saying that it would have been right to have the Packers' third championship era come in a new color set?

I did like it. And I would have been all for it had they made the change at the time. I was also on board with the rumored change to navy, FWIW.

But I also can't deny that there's something special about keeping a set through thick and thin. About Packers teams constantly earning the right to live up to Lombardi's uniform.

It's also been pointed out to me that once the chain has been broken, the door is open for any coach or GM to put his stamp on it. The Packers are still suffering from the last time a coach did that, even subtly.

[The_Admiral]

The Steelers' pairing of the yellow pants with the black helmet and white jersey has always annoyed me, too. For the most part, football pants should either be white or match the helmet in color (and preferably striping pattern, as well, if feasible and applicable).

You may remember it, but we had a discussion about them (and the Giants and their gray pants) a couple years ago, including some Steelers Photoshops...

http://boards.sportslogos.net/topic/90488-worst-white-uniforms-in-sports/page-3

Yeah, I'd prefer black pants, maybe with white socks with yellow stripes.

Also from the thread:

No contest.

How appropriate these and their navy counterparts were worn during the franchise's darkest period.

This guy spoke too soon.

[TheOldRoman]

But I also can't deny that there's something special about keeping a set through thick and thin. About Packers teams constantly earning the right to live up to Lombardi's uniform.

This is a huge thing to me. It's special looking at NFL films of Dick Butkus or Walter Payton, and seeing that the Bears are wearing the same uniform (other than the sleeves and navy pants on the road). There's something cool about seeing video of Jim Brown and seeing that the Browns are still wearing that (as recently as three days ago). Same with Frank Gore wearing what Joe Montana wore. In those videos, Payton or Brown are likely going up against the Redskins wearing whatever, or Eagles wearing God-knows-what, the Saints or the Rams wearing any litany of things, or even the dearly-departed creamsicle Buccaneers. It's meaningful to have a team wearing essentially the same thing for 50 years.

[OnWis97]

A huge joke.

The Packers could have said "We need new uniforms to erase the stink of losing." Heck, they did. Fortunately Ron Wolf reconsidered.

I thought you liked the proposed set and lamented that they Packers didn't switch to it, saying that it would have been right to have the Packers' third championship era come in a new color set?

I did like it. And I would have been all for it had they made the change at the time. I was also on board with the rumored change to navy, FWIW.

But I also can't deny that there's something special about keeping a set through thick and thin. About Packers teams constantly earning the right to live up to Lombardi's uniform.

It's also been pointed out to me that once the chain has been broken, the door is open for any coach or GM to put his stamp on it. The Packers are still suffering from the last time a coach did that, even subtly.

I am not following this. The striped collars?

[LogoFan]

Not sure what people are looking at when they say the white facemask over the gray. The gray is better. End of discussion. Its a better visual.

Also, I don't understand the people who think the Browns' white on white look is a good look. It looks terrible. It looks like old long john underpants. The white shirts need contrasting pants... either orange or brown.

End of discussion.

Stop it. You did not provide a final truth.

I prefer white though I admit both white (too loud) and gray (non-team color) stick out for different reasons. I'd like to see them try brown (see Bowling Green)

The other still-going discussion...I agree about white-on-white. I don't like that for any team...just like monochrome color. The Browns need a pair of either orange or brown pants for their white jerseys. Discuss.

Agree...discussion is not over. That is his opinion, same as anyone else's.

Personally I like the white over gray, as there is no gray anywhere in their color scheme. Regarding the uniforms themselves, I too hate the white-on-white. I see no reason they can't have an option of white, orange or brown for either pants or jerseys.