Eagles will bring back the kelly green uniforms

[leopard88]

Wait, so the colored part was a stirrup? It must have been worn over bare skin then, right? I guess it wouldn't matter, but I think the loop would be a little (more) uncomfortable.

They were generally worn like this --

My first (OK, only) year of youth football, we were given stirrups. At ages 9 and 10, none of us were smart enough to figure out what to do with them, so we all looked like we were wearing baseball socks.

[bohob]

Ice Cap, chill. I wasn't saying I wanted "clown suits" and I realize they were handcuffed by the era they were matching. But to me a plain green jersey with nothing on it looks like a U of Tennessee quarterback practice jersey. A sleeve logo, stripe, well placed wordmark or something would have made this less generic.

[BBTV]

Kudos to the Eagles for going with an accurate throwback. Always amazes me how some teams take the time and trouble to wear throwbacks without assuring they're accurate. What's the point?

But...I wish they'd go ultra-accurate: NNOB. Before somebody says, "What about throwbacks from before facemasks, should they go without facemasks?" Um, no, while it would be interesting to watch, that's a safety issue. Having NOB is useful but it wouldn't be the end of the world to go without them for a couple of games just to get a more authentic look.

Thoughts?

Then it's literally just a green jersey with white numbers that could (probably) legally be sold by anyone anywhere. I'd also suspect that the lack of NOB would make them much harder to market and sell in sporting goods stores, because a - they would really not look "official" or "authentic" (even though they are), and b - they might not be able to sell them for as much. Also, the "average" fan wants to sport their favorite player's name on the jersey (I'm assuming here, I certainly don't fall into this category), so overall, I would assume that the NOB would have a lot to do with merchandise sales.

It's a give and take, and they conceded one point in favor of marketing. Whether or not that's OK is certainly arguable.

[Chawls]

So, I spent about one minute in Illustrator and recolored the primary logo with kelly green and the slightly darker silver they used between 1992-1995. And you know what? I think the colors look better than what they have now:

Like I said earlier, I wish the Eagles would keep their current identity and uniforms and just swap midnight green for the older kelly green they used to use.

I cannot believe what I'm about to say, but I think that helmet would be best served with a gray (silver) facemask. But that is only because it is a part of their color scheme.

[darkhaha]

Since few people seem to understand what's going on, let me clarify a few things:

BUSTER: This is the 1960 uniform, and it is accurate. It is being worn in honor of the 50th anniversary of the Eagles' NFL championship season in 1960. That is why they are 'ultra-generic' and that is also why they are not wearing the Jaworski superstripe uniforms or the Cunningham eagle-on-the-sleeve uniforms. Wouldn't make any sense for the event they are celebrating.

JIGGA: The jerseys do feature the 1960 serifed numerals. They are the same as the numerals on the NY Titans throwbacks.

I love this color, but I don't like that the helmet is green and silver while the uniform is green and white. I think silver numerals, silver pants, silver stripes on the socks and a matching set of silver stripes on the sleeves would make this rock, and wouldn't be so generic. It would be unique in this league. I also would rather they included both stripes on the socks instead of going for the faux sanitary sock look like the Falcons did on their throwbacks. The original socks had two white stripes, spaced rather far apart, and the sanitary sock that players pulled up over the green stirrup usually covered the bottom stripe, which is the look they tried to replicate with these socks. If those two stripes were added to the sleeves, like the 1960 white jersey had, I think it would be a really nice uniform. You could either move the TV numerals to the shoulder or maybe even place them between the stripes, since they're so far apart.

I agree with every point you made. I had some similar ideas about my favorite Eagles' set -- the ones worn from 1967-68:

I always thought that if they were going to have silver wings on the helmet, they should have made the home jersey stripes silver (I would keep the numbers white) and made the pants and road jersey striping green-silver-green.

I have seen some photos from early 1969 (wish I could find them!) in which they wore the '67-68 uniforms with new helmets that were green with WHITE wings, and they looked awesome!

[darkhaha]

Here's the photo I was talking about in my previous post -- the '67-68 uni set paired with the "white wings" helmet. This pic is from early '69 (it's hard to tell, but he has the NFL 50th Anniversary patch on left shoulder):

They could have stuck with this and had a longtime classic set, IMHO. Instead they created some of the worst unis in their history from 1969-73.

[oldschoolvikings]

So, I spent about one minute in Illustrator and recolored the primary logo with kelly green and the slightly darker silver they used between 1992-1995. And you know what? I think the colors look better than what they have now:

Like I said earlier, I wish the Eagles would keep their current identity and uniforms and just swap midnight green for the older kelly green they used to use.

I cannot believe what I'm about to say, but I think that helmet would be best served with a gray (silver) facemask. But that is only because it is a part of their color scheme.

Yeah... throw in some silver pants (picture Georgia's pants with kelly swapped for the red)... now we're getting somewhere

[BBTV]

Look, I'm no kelly green hater, and it took me until 2003 to warm up to the midnight green, but that shade of green just looks horrible with all that black IMO. Black simply cannot be as big a part of their scheme if they were to go back to kelly green. The amount that they used during the Randall era was just enough.

[Gothamite]

Look, I'm no kelly green hater, and it took me until 2003 to warm up to the midnight green, but that shade of green just looks horrible with all that black IMO. Black simply cannot be as big a part of their scheme if they were to go back to kelly green.

See, this is what we call a "win-win."

[Rambulance]

And the current helmet logo can look good in kelly green with no black IMO

[Quillz]

And the current helmet logo can look good in kelly green with no black IMO

I agree, that looks really cool.

I don't dislike the current midnight green the Eagles use right now at all, but it's actually a hue of cyan, not green. I just think kelly green is overall a more "athletic" shade, whatever that means. Teams like the A's and Jets used to use in back in the 1980s, and it'd just be nice to see it revived once again by someone.

[BBTV]

The wings can't have that green outline in them - they should appear as one solid shape.

It might look cool if the green outline was actually gray, so the white part in the front would have a gray outline, and the outline would just kinda blend in with the rear part of the wing.

In all honesty, I really hate the two-toned wing that they have now, and would be happier with it if it was just solid gray with black and white outline.

[vmd9]

I like the recolor...

only thing I don't understand is, why someone can recolor the current (modern) Eagles logo, using the old green everyone loves it. But when the Cleveland Cavaliers actually will change their shade of gold everyone hates it and says its unnecessary? is that just people being biased? I personally think both are good logo recolors, and I understand these are only concepts. I just can't understand the outrage over the cavs and rejoice for the eagles

[The_Admiral]

Because we're used to the current Cavaliers set and like it the way it is with metallic gold. As such, leaving the maroon and navy while subbing out the metallic gold we know for the bright gold we don't causes some cognitive dissonance and makes people think it looks wrong and bad. Easy answer.

[Chawls]

The wings can't have that green outline in them - they should appear as one solid shape.

It might look cool if the green outline was actually gray, so the white part in the front would have a gray outline, and the outline would just kinda blend in with the rear part of the wing.

In all honesty, I really hate the two-toned wing that they have now, and would be happier with it if it was just solid gray with black and white outline.

Like this?

[neo_prankster]

So, I spent about one minute in Illustrator and recolored the primary logo with kelly green and the slightly darker silver they used between 1992-1995. And you know what? I think the colors look better than what they have now:

Like I said earlier, I wish the Eagles would keep their current identity and uniforms and just swap midnight green for the older kelly green they used to use.

I cannot believe what I'm about to say, but I think that helmet would be best served with a gray (silver) facemask. But that is only because it is a part of their color scheme.

Yeah... throw in some silver pants (picture Georgia's pants with kelly swapped for the red)... now we're getting somewhere

Silver pants with green-white-black stripe sequence, right?

[andrewharrington]

Wait, so the colored part was a stirrup? It must have been worn over bare skin then, right? I guess it wouldn't matter, but I think the loop would be a little (more) uncomfortable.

Up until about the late 60s, maybe, the colored part of the team sock was a stirrup, and the white, crew-length sanitary sock was pulled up to mid-calf. from the 70s on, more and more socks began showing up that were one-piece knit, with the bottom half plain white and the top half team color/stripe.

[Bmac]

If they could keep black only as an accent color, such as on the wings (similar to the Vikings horn detail), I think it could look great.

[andrewharrington]

Because we're used to the current Cavaliers set and like it the way it is with metallic gold. As such, leaving the maroon and navy while subbing out the metallic gold we know for the bright gold we don't causes some cognitive dissonance and makes people think it looks wrong and bad. Easy answer.

For what it's worth, the red is also a good bit darker, making it clash with the dark blue more than before.

[cameroncrazie07]

Ok I had that coming