Jump to content

Redskins GM: "NFL Restricted us to two pants"


DeFrank

Recommended Posts

Man, I'm sick of the NFL. You can't look good in your burgundy pants, but any player can wear 4 pair of socks to create a striped effect, or long single color socks, etc. SMH. Because of the helmet rule, let the teams jazz it up a little. Maybe they are giving the skins a hard time because of the nickname??

Off the top of my head teams with 3 pant options are...

Titans, Chargers, Panthers, Seahawks, Texans, Broncos

3 Pant options because of throwbacks...(although some not worn in '13)

Bucs, Jets, Redskins, Falcons and I'm sure I'm leaving some out...

Pats cowboys

Pats throwbacks are gone. Casualty of the one-helmet rule.
I thought it was saying 3 pants including throwbacks if it wasn't for that 1 helmet rule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this news?

It's news because Bruce Allen is saying the NFL restricted the Skins from wearing a third set of pants. This is contradictory to what most of thought was the rule of being allowed to wear 3 sets.

Yes, Dolphindan, I couldn't help but notice you ask the same question on the super bowl logo thread....what groundbreaking, earth-shattering news are you hoping to discuss instead?

On the pants issue, if the Redskins are going to keep their throwbacks again next season then I wish they'd break them out more than once a year. Seems a shame to have those pants as one of your 'required sets' and be in limited use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's news because Bruce Allen is saying the NFL restricted the Skins from wearing a third set of pants.

That would be news to all of us, since its not true.

Or maybe I just imagined Seattle, Tennessee and Carolina all wearing 3 different pairs of trousers in the 2013 season.

The Redskins aren't wearing the old burgundy pants because they chose not to. Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's news because Bruce Allen is saying the NFL restricted the Skins from wearing a third set of pants.

That would be news to all of us, since its not true.

Or maybe I just imagined Seattle, Tennessee and Carolina all wearing 3 different pairs of trousers in the 2013 season.

The Redskins aren't wearing the old burgundy pants because they chose not to. Simple as that.

That is correct that other teams wore 3 sets of pants, but the crux of this topic is that Bruce Allen was quoted as saying that the NFL did not allow this for the Redskins.

Check out my site at stevebcreations.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DeFrank....I was reading an account of the Chalk Talk on a Redskins message board and the guy reporting said he thought Bruce Allen mentioned something about asking the NFL permission to wear solid red pants. Do you recall this or did this guy just misunderstand Bruce Allen? Thanks.

Yeah I don't think there was anything about solid red pants. I was listening intently, considering I asked him the question and was sitting in the front row. Only reason I went was to ask. Perhaps the guy heard "solid red" instead of "solid tan."

concepts: washington football (2017) ... nfl (2013) ... yikes

potd 10/20/12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with that as the home look. However white over burgundy would be a superior road uniform to the white over gold they've worn the last 2 seasons.

Hotter Than July > Thriller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying about the white/gold, but to me they are refreshing. I got tired of looking at that white/burgandy after 20 years of losing. I get a headache just thinking about them.

I agree that the white/gold is a nice change up, but for me I'd like the team to use them just as a time to time change up. Like maybe white/red for 6 away games and white/gold for the other 2.

Check out my site at stevebcreations.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.