BBTV

I think we're going to need a "pointless numbering system outpost" thread to go along with the "pointless realignment outpost".

One challenge is that theres a lot of ambiguity with position these days, as defenses typically look (to the untrained eye... and even a trained eye requires more training these days) like 11 guys in random spots, as opposed to your old-school 4-3 or 3-4 or nickel. There's more versatility than ever amongst players, so categorizing them is tough, and in some cases, unfair (especially to players, who for franchise-tag and overall salary purposes, don't want to be categorized into one of the lower-paying positions when they actually play a lot of snaps at a higher-paying one.)

never underestimate an XFL alum.

If I'm Williams (or is it Williamson), I'm pulling an Eli Manning. That team has absolutely no idea how to 1) maximize player value, 2) manage the cap in a way that allows for a good surrounding cast, and 3) develop players. Oh, and 4) figure out a future home. It may be the worst-run franchise in the league, and this is the icing on the cake. There was simply no reason to make this deal, and they could have cost themselves a #2 or even more from a desperate team. They could have worked it out with Fields so that he understands that it's best for hi too. But they panicked and took whatever they could get. Like selling a stock after a down day in the market, despite their earnings report and jobs report coming out a week later, and both suggesting there could be a pop. There's so many dumb teams that it really makes me question how some of these execs even get jobs. We're way past the point where you need a "football guy" running things. I feel for Bears and Vikings fans, who seem to really need new ownership and a total paradigm shift in organizational philosophy. Same with Falcons, who may win 11 games, but still aren't a team that anyone's afraid or or that should be taken seriously. Same with Broncos, who are a train wreck even outside of the Wilson thing.

Sticking to my guns that kickers and punters don't need numbers. In fact, they don't even need to wear team-colored jerseys since they're not allowed to be hit. They could wear the red jersey, or something wacky like a soccer goalie. There's no numbering system that everyone is going to agree on. And times have changed, in that many WRs are smaller than ever, and their pads are also smaller, so 89 looks silly on them., unless they're big dudes like CeeDee or AJ Brown. But some things are sacred and shouldn't be Fd with. You want college rules? Simple - watch college football and cry like Cody FSU crybabies. The LB position has changed in a way that many of them are glorified safeties, which is sad, but a fact. And the advent of the Edge position, which is also sad and would make Bruce Smith and Reggie White roll over in their graves (or eventual graves), is a fact and some of these guys are receiver size rather than traditional DL size. So I don't know the right answer - but the current system isn't it. When there' literally zero numbers available for a QB, and there's safeties, DEs, Edges, LBs, RBs, WRs, and CBs all on the same team wearing QB numbers, it's flawed. I think that not all, but most people would agree with that. Retired numbers don't help either, but they're an inevitability. Even if they're simply kept out of circulation for 10ish years, it still creates the same issue. But ain't no way certain numbers could or should be re-worn on certain teams, but the teams need to employ a higher level of scrutiny when it comes to this topic.. Eagles have a litany of players that could be going into HOF within the next two years: Darren Sproles (borderline, arguable whether he's an Eagle or not), Jason Peters (def an Eagle, and def HOF), JasonKelce (duh), Fletcher Cox (borderline, prob not getting in), Lane Johnson (trending towards getting in), and even kicker Jake Elliot, who's on his way to being the second-best kicker ever behind Tucker (not sure how it works for kickers, so he may be on the outside.). In addition to sure-fire team HOF guys like Brandon Graham who is the all-time games-played leader and all-time seasons played leader. Not a NFL HOFer, but still one of the more significant guys in franchise history.. Of those, nobody is wearing 62 again. the others would probably just be held out for a few seasons. 12 is a weird case in that it's not retired, but Cunningham can essentially choose who wears it (and isn't the type of guy who would care, but it's basically retired.) I think there's some franchises that would consider retiring all of those numbers, but that's not practical. I think doing just one is fair enough. And it's hard to argue with the last few that they've done (92, 5, 20), though maybe 5 could have been on a "10-year rule". Also, 9 is a weird case, because there's literally a statue of Nick Foles and his enormous bulge, and there'd be riots if anyone else wore it - but does two games warrant a retirement? Even if one was the most significant game in team history and arguably the best single-game performance in SB history? The real answer is for everyone to go back to being two-way players and trim the rosters by half. I hope that gets run by the NFLPA, who I'm sure would accept it. Can't see any issues there.

My first thought was the same - how do the 32s and Giants not do this? But then I thought more, and it doesn't make much sense for the Giants to have him backing up $47M Daniel Jones (and it would be hard for them to demote Jones before the season starts). They're not going to be competitive, so it doesn't matter. But for Washington? I don't even know who their QB is. They're probably not going to compete, but since they don't have to pay Fields, why the F not? The worst case is that they get fooled into thinking he's a franchise guy and then crush their futures by signing him to some ridiculous deal. But basically it's a low-risk high-reward thing. My main reaction is LOL BEARS WTF YOU IDIOTS, HAHAHAHAHAHA, YOU'RE SO DUMB, U R SO DUM. I get that they wanted to do right by Fields and not have the awkward tension of him and the new QB in the same "room" (I hate that term.). But had they waited till the draft or till someone gets hurt in preseason, he'd've likely gone to a team that would have needed him to start, and they would have gotten better compensation (and by better, I mean basically anything.)

I'm not against change in general, but I'm a proponent of continuity. I think change and continuity can exist at the same time. Throughout modern NFL history, 7 and 12 have been like the QB numbers, much like 1 and 30-35 were the goalie numbers. There's obviously HOF QBs that didn't wear 7 or 12 (Montana, Manning, et al), but 7 and 12 were still magic (and not Magic Majkowski). Just like there were always a couple of goalies (Hextall with 27 for example) that were outside of that tradition, but the point still stands. Hockey numbers really started changing once the Russians and other Europeans started entering the league, and admittedly after the shock of seeing 68, 91, etc. wore off, it's no big deal now, but there's really no reason for the NFL to make it hard-to-impossible for new QBs to wear the numbers of legends, and to try and extend the history of success that comes along with those numbers.

1) they're just going to waste his prime years with some jabroni QB and incompetent offense. It's hard to build around a WR. They thought they were building around Cousins, but that didn't work out, so now there's not really a big need for Jefferson. With the #1 pick, they can start over and build around a new QB (and have a couple of seasons to do so while he develops.) 2) the "trading within the division" thing is overblown. The Vikings aren't going to compete this year, so it's irrelevant, at least for '24. Plus, the Bears would be stuck with Fields, who (even with Jefferson) the Vikings may not view as a threat. Plus the Bears are also incompetent idiots, so Minn. .may not care. Sometimes you just have to make the best deal that you can, regardless of who it's with. The Cowboys and Eagles have traded, the Eagles traded McNabb to Washington, and there's probably countless other examples. Sometimes trades can be win/win, so the net is zero. If the net is zero, then it truly doesn't matter.

“The kick by number BK, have it your way is good.” Kicker goes to sideline while some minimum-wage ad intern puts a BK crown on him and makes him eat a whopper while the camera is on him. Just wait till the punter is sponsored by Fleshlight. But still, they don’t need numbers.

Phillies broadcasters during a preseason game today: "Looks like someone's taking over at first base. Based on the number, it's [some random guy]. We can't tell if he's got a nameplate or not, but maybe he doesn't because he's a [lowest level] player. Or maybe he does - we can't tell who's got a name from up here anymore."

I have no idea of the history, but this could be read several ways, especially considering that "history is written by the winners". Were they willing guides who wanted these potential intruders on their land taking over the trading business? That's rhetorical, because I know nothing about the history, and I doubt anyone here does, but those are the kinds of questions that could go through one's mind while evaluating this. Of course, the only way would be to get an indigenous tribe's leadership to sign off on it, as it's likely they'd know more about the history and whether it's a log that's sportswashing atrocities, or if it's genuinely honoring a partnership between the natives and europeans. So basically - I'm not sure anyone here is qualified to say whether it's offensive or not.

I've said it before, but kickers and punters shouldn't have to wear numbers. Just put the team logo on the front, or an advertisement.

Fields will be a draft-day trade, or this year's Sam Bradford, who the idiot Vikings gave up a 1st-round pick for at the end of the preseason. At this point if I'm the Bears, I'm holding on to him and hoping that a decent team's QB gets injured in training camp and they go into panic mode. Like the Bradford situation.

JFC a defensive end in 0? If he doesn't get any sacks, that's a joke waiting to happen. I goddam hate this nonsense. Kenny Two Gloves has NO QB NUMBER TO WEAR because of idiot DEs and LBs choosing 3, 7, 17, and D-backs with 2, etc. There's a UFA with 13 that'll probably not be back, so he'll end up with that. But it's ridiculous that there's no numbers available for a QB. The punter should be 0, not a DE. i'll never stop screaming at the clouds.

Haha the Eagles ended up with Kenny "Small Hands, Two Gloves" Pickett. They loved him the year he was drafted, and the word on the street was that they weren't sure about Hurts and may take him. I guess they didn't want to wait for the Fields price to plummet, or for Hurts to feel slighted by the move (though Hurts doesn't seem like the type that would care about Fields being there.)

Andy Reid is also keeping an eye on him.

it was enough to warrant the 2-year lead-time rule, so I’d guess yes.

In a 4(?) year span, the Eagles: 1. have Jalen Hurts tank so they keep the Giants out of the playoffs 2. jump in front of the Giants to draft DeVonta Smith, causing Giants fans to go berserk on social media 3. sign Saquon Barkley

Laugh all you want, but there is something about 5 that's just... I don't know how to put it, but "static". It's not necessarily the players that have worn it, it's just the actual shape of the number is not-dynamic. Especially in fonts where the left side descends (like the Eagles, Phillies, Packers, etc.) I know Mahomes wears 15, but when standing still, it doesn't look like it fits his style. 5 is just a slow-looking number. Same with almost any number that contains it - 15, 35 (doesn't evoke speed), 45 (maybe a good strong safety or LB number these days) 51, 52, 53, 57, all look "slow", 65, 85 (always felt like a blocking TE number rather than a WR number). Some combos with 5 look more dynamic. 25, 55, 56, and some others. Again, it's purely the aesthetic of the number, I don't care what great player you post that wore it. He's right - 5 isn't a receiver number. (of course, IMO 3 shouldn't be allowed, but since it is, it's better than 5.)

Nice work, @BadSeed84. I thought I'd like it a lot more. Neither the new one nor the old one matched the numbers at all, but as others have pointed out, at least the old one had an outline to tie things together. Now that I think about it, I think when we saw the logo slick, there's not a single version of the wordmark that has an outline. I think they should make an exception for the jersey.

A "weapon for Bryce Young"? What good is any weapon if you don't have the arm to use it? Maybe if he had a helmet that shot lasers out of it, that'd be a weapon he could use, but anything that requires arms or legs won't help. Also that's a hapless organization from the ownership down. I think if I got traded there, I'd quit and sign with the UFL (not really, because of the $, but I'd probably have to seek counseling.) In other news... So Barkley's contract is really 2 years / 26M (still absurd for a RB) and he'll be cut in year 3 for a 1.5m dead-cap hit. Looks like they could cut him in year 2, but would still have to pay him and take a dead-cap hit, so that's unlikely. I think when we report contracts, rather than simply going by Schefter's tweets, let's look at the guarantees and "out" clauses for teams. These 5-year deals are really 3, 3s are really 2, hell - even a 10 might be only 3.

Hoping that when Barkley is introduced, we get a 2024 jersey with the new wordmark. if it's an old wordmark, not how to tell if it's leftover stock or if they simply didn't update the '24s.

GJGJ back to the Eagles.

Jets may need to find a new starter if one of these political rumors comes to be. I'll laugh my ass off if he again plays one game for them then walks away to pursue the other thing.