We can argue back and forth what the colonialists wore during the Revolutionary War but the simple facts are:
1) The British wore red uniforms.
2) The Boston/New England Patriots wore red uniforms from 1959 to 1992, a 33 year period in which they only made the playoffs 5 times and managed a 4-5 record, including 0-1 in the 1985 Super Bowl.
3) They were 216-259-9 during these 33 years with only 16 of those seasons having a winning (>.500) record.
I lived through many of their sucky seasons during the years of Pat Patriot and I see no reason to celebrate that uniform.
We'll have to agree to disagree here.
Your feelings are staunchly, steadfastly, eternally shared by a legion of fellow Boston sports fans.
Mark Twain said, "Don't let the facts spoil a good story."
Every year, local Boston media scribes get together for a golf game to celebrate their successful False Laughingstock Narrative regarding the Boston/New England Patriots. Trumpeting each loss as consistent with the franchise's identity and putting every story in the most negative light. Since its inception right after the merger, it's been picked up nationally, partly because Boston sports teams are not popular with the rest of the country but mostly because hell, if their own local media says they suck then they must really suck. Billy Sullivan was rightfully and understandably not popular with the media. Does that justify turning the team's own fan base against them? Of course not.
Conveniently tucked away inside all those numbers is the reality that in each of the team's first three decades, the Patriots enjoyed success on the field superior to two thirds of the rest of the teams in football. Half of each decade included being highly competitive with legendary star players and consistent, sustained winning (while many other franchises had utter futility on the field for decades actually worthy of the laughingstock label).
When the Patriots lost, they did lose big, and they had themselves to blame: Hiring Clive Rush over Chuck Noll, allowing Doug Flutie to be exiled to Canada, etc. They went 2-14 in 1981, but despite Pete Axthelm's lustful gloating that was the single losing season for the Patriots in a 13 year span.
I don't think it's quite an accurate characterization to say that the San Francisco 49ers of the 1980's were "generally mediocre" because in six of those years they went 1-4 in the playoffs, missing the postseason entirely in two of those years.
Billy Sullivan's son-in-law and carpetbagging, See you in St. Louis James Busch Orthwein were marketing aficionados, which of course does not mean they were right about anything. Poor merchandising sales in the early 90's had to do with the team's recent on field record. Accepting the identity suicide perpetrated in 1993 requires completely ignoring several monumental realities, including:
The team's historically accurate and sport appropriate logo was established in the community for over three decades, was beloved and cherished by real local fans and liked, admired and envied across the country by opponents' fans. Dreary, drab primary blue jerseys were and are worn by half the league. The American people are not interested in insulting the honor of those who fought, sacrificed and died for this country by replacing the American flag, because it's mostly red, with something visually abhorrent. The records of the Patriots from 1961-66, 1976-80 and 1982-88 speak for themselves.
Saying the Patriots 'always lost' their first 33 years is the same as saying the Red Sox 'always lost' from 1919-2003, the Bruins 'always lost' from 1973-2010, and the Celtics 'always lost' from 1987-2007.
There were losing stretches, but in each team's case the winning was significant, glorious and better than anything the vast majority of other cities had during those periods.
