daveindc

New Browns uni coming 2015

Recommended Posts

Storied history is storied history. The Browns have not been a historical doormat, no matter what people think of them not having gone to a Super Bowl. They have a strong history and were an integral part of the NFL. Saying "it didn't happen while I was alive" doesn't mean a thing. Alabama football didn't win a national championship for 17 years. By 2002, all the recruits were too young to remember that title, yet they understood that Alabama was a powerhouse. Bama got great recruiting classes even in their bumbling years. The Celtics recently went 22 years without a title, being a laughingstock for most of it. Yet they were still a storied franchise. Hell, people still hang on the Cubs' nuts despite the fact that they've gone 106 years without a championship and 69 years without a pennant.

So your point holds no water. The Browns have a proud history. Unless you want to claim that they should throw everything out the window and go Full Nike just because they haven't won a Super Bowl, which you are free to claim. But what if the Brows had won in the '80s? Would they then be justified in their current look? The 49ers created a dynasty, yet some people still celebrate the dreary cardinal-and-black crap that they went to in 1996. People who want new stuff and claim the team should switch because they haven't won recently would still want them to switch if they had won five years ago.

I'm not saying what they should or shouldn't do. But to say that a riot would inevitably ensue if they changed away from their traditional uniforms due to nostalgia for an era that no fan under 55 remembers first-hand is silly. The older fans who remember that history and treasure it aren't going to abandon the team because they changed their uniforms, and the younger fans who are the target audience for new uniforms and logos such as these don't give a damn about what the team did in 1964 or what they wore while doing it.

Also, don't forget that all Cubs fans hate themselves, and that is why they are Cubs fans.

But here's where you're wrong. Yes, the Browns look is a historic look which was worn for several championships. However, that's not why a 25 year old, 35 year old or 45 year old love it. They love it because it IS the Browns. It's their team and, as a legacy NFL franchise with a strong history, it's the look they've held on to. And the fanbase is extremely passionate about their team. So yes, the fanbase is like to flip out if the design is a drastic departure from how the Cleveland Browns have looked. A handful of 16 year-olds might say the old design is boring and making them lose, but most people who have a vested interest in the team are not wanting to see a change just because the team has sucked for 20 years.

This is a fantastic point, but after watching Twitter mock the franchise ever since the new logo announcement with various feces related jokes, I understand the need to rebrand.

I mean, be honest. What do you think of when you see those Browns uniforms? I think of Red Right 88, The Drive, the Fumble, 1995, and a long list of failure QB's, embodied by the image of Manziel lying on the flat of his back in the endzone.

The current look serves as a constant reminder of the failures of the franchise, the dying city of Cleveland, and the laughing stock the Browns have been since re joining the NFL.

I don't like it because it is a classic look and Sundays won't be the same without it, but I absolutely understand the want to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyone else seen the @uniswag post about Browns receivers leaking the new logo? Looks a lot like Max O'Brien's Cleveland Dog.

n80aUhch_crop_exact.jpg?w=650&h=432&q=85

Call me crazy but I really like this one. I see that it's most likely just a concept though which is somewhat disappointing. The dog is a great choice for a logo and at first glance I can also see the shape of a left face helmet/facemask. I might be reading too much in to that second part but it's just the vibe I get from it which I like since it would keep the thought of their old helmet logo around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm willing to bet the new logo is the new helmet and everyone hoping for an actual logo will go ape$hit come Tuesday afternoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure their #1 priority in designing these new uniforms is what people 55 and over (i.e. the only ones who have an actual memory of that last title) think.

Storied history is storied history. The Browns have not been a historical doormat, no matter what people think of them not having gone to a Super Bowl. They have a strong history and were an integral part of the NFL. Saying "it didn't happen while I was alive" doesn't mean a thing. Alabama football didn't win a national championship for 17 years. By 2002, all the recruits were too young to remember that title, yet they understood that Alabama was a powerhouse. Bama got great recruiting classes even in their bumbling years. The Celtics recently went 22 years without a title, being a laughingstock for most of it. Yet they were still a storied franchise. Hell, people still hang on the Cubs' nuts despite the fact that they've gone 106 years without a championship and 69 years without a pennant.

So your point holds no water. The Browns have a proud history. Unless you want to claim that they should throw everything out the window and go Full Nike just because they haven't won a Super Bowl, which you are free to claim. But what if the Brows had won in the '80s? Would they then be justified in their current look? The 49ers created a dynasty, yet some people still celebrate the dreary cardinal-and-black crap that they went to in 1996. People who want new stuff and claim the team should switch because they haven't won recently would still want them to switch if they had won five years ago.

I'm not saying what they should or shouldn't do. But to say that a riot would inevitably ensue if they changed away from their traditional uniforms due to nostalgia for an era that no fan under 55 remembers first-hand is silly. The older fans who remember that history and treasure it aren't going to abandon the team because they changed their uniforms, and the younger fans who are the target audience for new uniforms and logos such as these don't give a damn about what the team did in 1964 or what they wore while doing it.

Also, don't forget that all Cubs fans hate themselves, and that is why they are Cubs fans.

By your own argument I, as a Leafs fan born after 1967, do not care about the team's rich history and would be fine with them adopting some modern clown suit of a uniform. I can assure you that you are wrong on both counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I would be remiss if I didn't point out you completely dodged the points that ran contrary to the broad stroke assumptions you were seeming to make with so much authority ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I would be remiss if I didn't point out you completely dodged the points that ran contrary to the broad stroke assumptions you were seeming to make with so much authority ;)

You're right...I could have been more explicit that I was making generalizations, and that I didn't actually think that every single fan of every single sports team would feel exactly the way I described.

But to be fair, you're a moderator on a sports logos and uniforms message board with nearly 22,000 posts in 11+ years. You have a strong, strong interest in the subject. So your thoughts on logos and uniforms might not be representative of all fans of your team. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please please please let the new logo be a Revo version of the old plain-ass orange helmet. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I would be remiss if I didn't point out you completely dodged the points that ran contrary to the broad stroke assumptions you were seeming to make with so much authority ;)

You're right...I could have been more explicit that I was making generalizations, and that I didn't actually think that every single fan of every single sports team would feel exactly the way I described.

But to be fair, you're a moderator on a sports logos and uniforms message board with nearly 22,000 posts in 11+ years. You have a strong, strong interest in the subject. So your thoughts on logos and uniforms might not be representative of all fans of your team. :)

I don't see the Leafs breaking the mould uniform-wise. Every alternate they've ever had has been a throwback. Their last two redesigns have gotten progressively more traditional since the mid 2000s (and those uniforms didn't exactly redefine modern hockey design...they just added a monogram alternate and silver trim).

I say this because MLSE may not run a competent hockey organization but they sure know how to make money. If their data showed that most Leafs fans had no appreciation for the team's history and past successes and would respond well to a modern look? They'd do it in a heartbeat. The Leafs have gotten more and more traditional in their look over the years because that's what the fanbase, regardless of whether or not they remember 1967, wants. If anything the lack of recent success means we tend to cherish the past and the traditional looks even more.

Now you could say "well doesn't the Browns' change indicate that's not the case for Cleveland?" To which I would reply MLSE's ownership is apathetic about on-ice performance, but they're focused like a laser when it comes to making money. The Browns' ownership? They're just idiots.

Fact is that the Browns traditional (and soon to be former) brand had tremendous loyalty attached to it despite the decades of futility. That tells me that the legacy of the Browns that the traditional look represented had enough significance to make up for the poor on-field product. The team is routinely terrible but the fans are still there, still buying tickets and merch.

What does this mean? Wel let me ask you this. Is there any indication that the Browns are going to be getting better? Sure they had a hot start, but their QB situation fell apart near the middle of the season. The division seems solidly in the hands of the Steelers and Ravens, with the Bengals being good enough to make a play on a consistent basis.

So with no real prospects on the horizon this new Browns brand will be associated with losing football and only losing football. Whereas the soon to be former traditional brand had historical cache.

All things being equal? The Browns stand to loose more then they gain with a modern rebrand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I would be remiss if I didn't point out you completely dodged the points that ran contrary to the broad stroke assumptions you were seeming to make with so much authority ;)

You're right...I could have been more explicit that I was making generalizations, and that I didn't actually think that every single fan of every single sports team would feel exactly the way I described.

But to be fair, you're a moderator on a sports logos and uniforms message board with nearly 22,000 posts in 11+ years. You have a strong, strong interest in the subject. So your thoughts on logos and uniforms might not be representative of all fans of your team. :)

I don't see the Leafs breaking the mould uniform-wise. Every alternate they've ever had has been a throwback. Their last two redesigns have gotten progressively more traditional since the mid 2000s (and those uniforms didn't exactly redefine modern hockey design...they just added a monogram alternate and silver trim).

I say this because MLSE may not run a competent hockey organization but they sure know how to make money. If their data showed that most Leafs fans had no appreciation for the team's history and past successes and would respond well to a modern look? They'd do it in a heartbeat. The Leafs have gotten more and more traditional in their look over the years because that's what the fanbase, regardless of whether or not they remember 1967, wants. If anything the lack of recent success means we tend to cherish the past and the traditional looks even more.

Now you could say "well doesn't the Browns' change indicate that's not the case for Cleveland?" To which I would reply MLSE's ownership is apathetic about on-ice performance, but they're focused like a laser when it comes to making money. The Browns' ownership? They're just idiots.

Fact is that the Browns traditional (and soon to be former) brand had tremendous loyalty attached to it despite the decades of futility. That tells me that the legacy of the Browns that the traditional look represented had enough significance to make up for the poor on-field product. The team is routinely terrible but the fans are still there, still buying tickets and merch.

What does this mean? Wel let me ask you this. Is there any indication that the Browns are going to be getting better? Sure they had a hot start, but their QB situation fell apart near the middle of the season. The division seems solidly in the hands of the Steelers and Ravens, with the Bengals being good enough to make a play on a consistent basis.

So with no real prospects on the horizon this new Browns brand will be associated with losing football and only losing football. Whereas the soon to be former traditional brand had historical cache.

All things being equal? The Browns stand to loose more then they gain with a modern rebrand.

As happens from time to time, my mild snark has gotten in the way of my original point, which was that "We won titles in this look 50+ years ago" isn't a valid reason to keep that look. I'm down with everything you say about tradition and history, which is much more nuanced than simply "We had success with this look long, long ago..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta go with moving forward with the brand. It's stagnant by now regardless of how long it's been around. The incoming audience (younger fans) deserves something to look forward to, if not a good football team.

I just hope Nike and the Browns don't completely f this up and make me eat my words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History lesson: In 1984 the team said "we need to freshen things up. We need to go modern."

ozzie_newsome_1984_09_09.jpg1000x1000.jpg

They released uniforms that were more contemporary for the time, but also didn't look like the Cleveland Browns. In doing so they angered a lot of Fans and by the next season they were wearing their regular uniforms. Obviously times have changed and we're more conditioned as sports fans to accept changes because that's the world we live in, but If you ask me this is a case of history repeating itself.

I don't see how this can not go terribly. I think this is a huge mistake and unfortunately the league has rules in place now they didn't have in 1985. We're going to be stuck with these future disasters for at least five years.

Prove me wrong, Browns/Nike! Prove me wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Browns jerseys are my favorite in the NFL right now, but I'm actually going into this optimistically. Even with a subtle design down the middle stripe, I think the Browns helmets can come out looking a lot better. There are a couple orange college helmets that have finishes that I really like. I'd prefer a white facemask, but brown will look better than gray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with everybody else that a blank helmet is how it should be, I'm also happy that they should finally be getting a real logo to identify themselves on paper and scoreboards. The logo-less helmet is fine for the uniforms, but they really need something other than the Browns helmet design painted on a blank helmet template to be used as the team's primary logo. The Ohio State Buckeyes have a real logo, so why shouldn't the Browns? I always found that absurd to a degree, even though I know it's somewhat their tradition, as they've been using a helmet for a logo for multiple decades.

While the upcomming unveiling is pointing towards disaster (based on the bits and pieces of info we've received so far), them getting a logo will be an upgrade, regardless of how bad everything else is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History lesson: In 1984 the team said "we need to freshen things up. We need to go modern."

ozzie_newsome_1984_09_09.jpg1000x1000.jpg

They released uniforms that were more contemporary for the time, but also didn't look like the Cleveland Browns. In doing so they angered a lot of Fans and by the next season they were wearing their regular uniforms. Obviously times have changed and we're more conditioned as sports fans to accept changes because that's the world we live in, but If you ask me this is a case of history repeating itself.

I don't see how this can not go terribly. I think this is a huge mistake and unfortunately the league has rules in place now they didn't have in 1985. We're going to be stuck with these future disasters for at least five years.

Prove me wrong, Browns/Nike! Prove me wrong.

Those brown jerseys were awful. Don't mind the white, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History lesson: In 1984 the team said "we need to freshen things up. We need to go modern."

ozzie_newsome_1984_09_09.jpg1000x1000.jpg

They released uniforms that were more contemporary for the time, but also didn't look like the Cleveland Browns. In doing so they angered a lot of Fans and by the next season they were wearing their regular uniforms. Obviously times have changed and we're more conditioned as sports fans to accept changes because that's the world we live in, but If you ask me this is a case of history repeating itself.

I don't see how this can not go terribly. I think this is a huge mistake and unfortunately the league has rules in place now they didn't have in 1985. We're going to be stuck with these future disasters for at least five years.

Prove me wrong, Browns/Nike! Prove me wrong.

The reason they didn't keep this look is because the orange-on-brown numbers and letters were impossible to read from the pressbox and on TV. I'll always remember the 1984 season because of the opening loss to Seattle 33-0, with Paul Mcdonald at QB. I think they wore those uniforms during preseason, but switched back to the old uniforms for the regular season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1984_Cleveland.png

Take note of the outlined numbers too. They really went out for a change but ended up with the classic uniforms the next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the orange numbers actually. And on modern TV sets they'd probably be good to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladies and gentleman, your new Cleveland Browns home jersey...

DSCN0591.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Literally)

Agreed... As long as "do it" means throw it in the garbage, scrub this logo from the teams history, and pretend you are never assocaited with such a terrible logo... Than yeah, I totally agree.

2tgfj27mexxtg6gt2mhwax6wr.gif

Just do it.

(Literally)

Agreed... As long as "do it" means throw it in the garbage, scrub this logo from the teams history, and pretend you are never assocaited with such a terrible logo... Than yeah, I totally agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.