I’m not against change, however. If they had to change, here’s close to what I like to see them do:
http://i256.photobuc...
More “hip” color shades, although as a uniform it most closely resembles the Otto Graham era, which was by no means successful.

as much love as the chiefs’ unis get around here, i’d still rather see them wear something more like that. those redskins unis were my favorites in the anniversary season. i thought those were pretty much perfect.

On the plus side, historical or not, I loved the look of those faux-backs.

As did I.

I’d go so far as to say that they’re the best uniforms Washington ever wore. And I’m usually a stickler for historical accuracy.

Also, more SCATHING reviews of the OKC clipart logo … from people who actually know what they’re talking about (Designers).

http://www.undercons...

Giancarlo said:

Ricko said:

Know one thing I remember about those purple pants? The difference in fabric from front to back. The front was all satin and shiny, and the back was flat, opaque stretch fabric. They almost looked two-tone. A lot of team’s pants were like that, but it was really apparent on the Vikings because of the color.

—Ricko

I’ve noticed that about ’60s-era unis. Do you know what the purpose of that was? My recollection is the LA Rams wore two-fabric pants into the ’80s. Was that for the same reason?

Please allow me to use your shiny pants observations for a segue to a little more ‘Skins stuff:

In 1982, there was a breakout of shiny pants that at best didn’t make it 1983. http://i256.photobuc...

They really showed up during games after dark.

Also, it’s often been mentioned about Lombardi importing the GB uniform scheme in 1969. Vince didn’t get his unis right away. http://i256.photobuc...

The road jerseys were not ready for opening day in New Orleans. http://i256.photobuc...

Here is the 2002 Skins “special edition” unis that never made the field. http://i256.photobuc...

No matter how great one may think those unis look, there’s one inescapable problem: in order to see them, you have to watch a Redskins game! ;-)

When I lived in DC, the local media was so ‘Skins obsessed that my wife and I couldn’t wait until their season ended, just so George Michael would shut up. Of course, in my case, growing up as a ‘Niners fan in the 80’s, I had no love for the ‘Skins to begin with.

/rant

On the plus side, historical or not, I loved the look of those faux-backs.

Ricko said:

Giancarlo said:

Ricko said:

Know one thing I remember about those purple pants? The difference in fabric from front to back. The front was all satin and shiny, and the back was flat, opaque stretch fabric. They almost looked two-tone. A lot of team’s pants were like that, but it was really apparent on the Vikings because of the color.

—Ricko

I’ve noticed that about ’60s-era unis. Do you know what the purpose of that was? My recollection is the LA Rams wore two-fabric pants into the ’80s. Was that for the same reason?

I think it was because they wanted the satin finish, but that fabric didn’t stetch. That meant the back half of the pants absolutely HAD to stretch or they’d be useless.

—Ricko

That’s also from my recollections of wearing pants like that: satin front, stretchy back.

(For football, LI Phil, not for disco. Or American Bandstand, either.)

Phil’s deal was Soooooooul Train!

Ricko said:

Know one thing I remember about those purple pants? The difference in fabric from front to back. The front was all satin and shiny, and the back was flat, opaque stretch fabric. They almost looked two-tone. A lot of team’s pants were like that, but it was really apparent on the Vikings because of the color.

—Ricko

I’ve noticed that about ’60s-era unis. Do you know what the purpose of that was? My recollection is the LA Rams wore two-fabric pants into the ’80s. Was that for the same reason?

Please allow me to use your shiny pants observations for a segue to a little more ‘Skins stuff:

In 1982, there was a breakout of shiny pants that at best didn’t make it 1983. http://i256.photobuc... They really showed up during games after dark.

Also, it’s often been mentioned about Lombardi importing the GB uniform scheme in 1969. Vince didn’t get his unis right away. http://i256.photobuc... The road jerseys were not ready for opening day in New Orleans. http://i256.photobuc...

Here is the 2002 Skins “special edition” unis that never made the field. http://i256.photobuc...

Giancarlo said:

Ricko said:

Know one thing I remember about those purple pants? The difference in fabric from front to back. The front was all satin and shiny, and the back was flat, opaque stretch fabric. They almost looked two-tone. A lot of team’s pants were like that, but it was really apparent on the Vikings because of the color.

—Ricko

I’ve noticed that about ’60s-era unis. Do you know what the purpose of that was? My recollection is the LA Rams wore two-fabric pants into the ’80s. Was that for the same reason?

I think it was because they wanted the satin finish, but that fabric didn’t stetch. That meant the back half of the pants absolutely HAD to stretch or they’d be useless.

—Ricko

That’s also from my recollections of wearing pants like that: satin front, stretchy back.

(For football, LI Phil, not for disco. Or American Bandstand, either.)