Chargers uniform history

[Moser316]

The Chargers actually picked it up from this site belonging to Peter Christopher (they acknowledge this as well):

http://www.christopdesign.com/chargers/cha...orms_flash.html

For some reason they decided not to show the 1974-78 version, but here it is

They probably don't show it because it's the best one they've ever had, and that would ruin both sides of every arguement.

If it weren't for the inconsistency on the pant striping, I'd be totally in that camp. As it is, the Fouts-era jerseys are the best-looking ones the Chargers have ever worn.

[griffelh]

I'm with you, I love the Fouts era jerseys. Recently picked me up a blue M&N Charlie Joiner.

[Rambulance]

St Louis has a uniform history on their site as well.

http://www.stlouisrams.com/History/Uniforms/

[usahockeyrube]

Best. uniform. ever.

[pflava]

^^^

Man, that thing is sweet. The blue jersey/yellow pants combo is fantastic.

[Gothamite]

St Louis has a uniform history on their site as well.

http://www.stlouisrams.com/History/Uniforms/

The Packers currently have one as well, that uses the same Maple Leaf Productions drawings.

http://www.packers.com/history/fast_facts/uniform_history/

The Chargers site is much better.

[leopard88]

St Louis has a uniform history on their site as well.

http://www.stlouisrams.com/History/Uniforms/

Anyone else notice that the Rams site calls the helmet horns "infamous"? Somebody needs a dictionary for Christmas.

[Roger Clemente]

St Louis has a uniform history on their site as well.

http://www.stlouisrams.com/History/Uniforms/

Boy do the Rams gold pants ever need striping now BAAAAAAD!!!! They are the second worst to only the Texas Longhorns for the most fruiest/effeminate pants in football history. I don't mind pants being that color, but football pants NEED striping (unless it is a dark color, then it's hit or miss).

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

[hecticbro]

Powder blue shirts and white helmets.... For a football team? I never understood why this is so popular, since it looks so non-threatening.

I think navy with yellow and powder blue trim could look cool, and maybe they could even come out with a tough-looking horse logo to put on the sleeves (with the lightning bolts still there, of course).

[pflava]

St Louis has a uniform history on their site as well.

http://www.stlouisrams.com/History/Uniforms/

Boy do the Rams gold pants ever need striping now BAAAAAAD!!!! They are the second worst to only the Texas Longhorns for the most fruiest/effeminate pants in football history. I don't mind pants being that color, but football pants NEED striping (unless it is a dark color, then it's hit or miss).

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

How are white football pants effeminate?

[Roger Clemente]

St Louis has a uniform history on their site as well.

http://www.stlouisrams.com/History/Uniforms/

Boy do the Rams gold pants ever need striping now BAAAAAAD!!!! They are the second worst to only the Texas Longhorns for the most fruiest/effeminate pants in football history. I don't mind pants being that color, but football pants NEED striping (unless it is a dark color, then it's hit or miss).

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

How are white football pants effeminate?

They remind me of ballet dancers.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

[Gothamite]

Black uniforms remind me of mimes.

[Gothamite]

Powder blue shirts and white helmets.... For a football team? I never understood why this is so popular, since it looks so non-threatening.

I think navy with yellow and powder blue trim could look cool, and maybe they could even come out with a tough-looking horse logo to put on the sleeves (with the lightning bolts still there, of course).

"Non-threatening" is not in the uniforms. It's in the team.

Green and yellow aren't threatening, but when Lombardi's Packers were on the field, nobody could stop them.

White, silver and royal blue aren't threatening, but that didn't matter when the Cowboys won five rings.

Trying to look "tough" is the surest way to show that you're a pretender. Really tough teams don't need to flaunt it.

[pflava]

^

Exactly.

The idea that dark colors and "tough" logos intimidate anyone is completely laughable - a childish notion.

[TheOldRoman]

Powder blue shirts and white helmets.... For a football team? I never understood why this is so popular, since it looks so non-threatening.

I think navy with yellow and powder blue trim could look cool, and maybe they could even come out with a tough-looking horse logo to put on the sleeves (with the lightning bolts still there, of course).

"Non-threatening" is not in the uniforms. It's in the team.

Green and yellow aren't threatening, but when Lombardi's Packers were on the field, nobody could stop them.

White, silver and royal blue aren't threatening, but that didn't matter when the Cowboys won five rings.

Trying to look "tough" is the surest way to show that you're a pretender. Really tough teams don't need to flaunt it.

Exactly. Many people rip on the old Buccaneers' look as too wimpy. Aside from the logo, they got a lot of crap because of the orange. Orange supposedly wasn't imtimidating.

What about the Broncos? The orange crush defense? Do you think players weren't imtimidated walking into Mile High? Ask a BigTen basketball players how they feel walking into the sea of orange at Illinois' Assembly hall. We are trained to associate certain things with certain emotions. If the Patriots wore pink jerseys and won 5 straight superbowls, football players would break into hives at the sight of pink drapes.

[hecticbro]

^

Exactly.

The idea that dark colors and "tough" logos intimidate anyone is completely laughable - a childish notion.

Well, these are guys that are playing a kid's game.

Anyway, when you're a player on a team, you tend to play tougher and feel more pride in your team when the clothes on your back make you look threatening.... And not like a ballet dancer.

[Gothamite]

^

Exactly.

The idea that dark colors and "tough" logos intimidate anyone is completely laughable - a childish notion.

Well, these are guys that are playing a kid's game.

Anyway, when you're a player on a team, you tend to play tougher and feel more pride in your team when the clothes on your back make you look threatening.... And not like a ballet dancer.

First of all, football is not a kid's game. Some kids do play it, but it's never been a kid's game. It was a collegian's game before it was a professional game, but that is in no way the same thing.

Second of all, that may your opinion of "tuff" uniforms, but the notion that a player wearing the "kewl" colors of a terrible team "feels more pride" than a player who takes the field in the green and gold of the Packers or John Elway when he wore Denver orange is, as pflava said, simply laughable.

[hecticbro]

Yeah, the Chargers aren't the Packers, or the Yankees, or the Habs, or anything else like that. They've never even won a Super Bowl.

Only in rare instances can that argument work, since there are so few teams whose uniforms alone can inspire that much pride.

And any sport is a kid's game if you ask me. It's not like they're out there going to work in an office or something like most adults; they're playing a game to make their living.

[edensker]

Give me 1968-1971. I prefer to the yellow pants to the white pants with the powder blues.

[Gothamite]

Only in rare instances can that argument work, since there are so few teams whose uniforms alone can inspire that much pride.

Many more than there are examples of players who have more pride in their club just because the uniforms are "tuff," since we've yet to hear a single example.

And any sport is a kid's game if you ask me. It's not like they're out there going to work in an office or something like most adults; they're playing a game to make their living.

Words mean things, even "kid's game." Game I'll go with, but kids? Nope. Demonstrably false.

I understand the appeal of overblown rhetoric, but you really need to keep it on a short leash if you want to appear credible.