Billy B Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 In regards to defenders wearing low numbers like a QB or RB, Nebraska's had several of our top defenders in recent years sporting #4 - Lavonte David, Randy Gregory, Mohammed Seisay, and Larry Asante to name a few. I'm kind of hoping it becomes sort of a defacto honor that the defense's alpha dog gets to wear #4. So does your QB right now.That's another one that kinda "looks bad". Am I wrong or is it more common for a star player (or at least starter) on each side of the ball to wear the same number? I know that college football rosters have had duplicate numbers for as long as I remember but it seems like the QB's number is more frequently worn by a defensive starter. I am pretty sure FSU has a defensive starter wearing #5 (Winston's number). I recall Mantei Te'o wearing #5 and I think the starting QB did too. When Tanner McEvoy switched to QB at Wisconsin, he took #5, worn by defensive starter Darius Hillary. There are other QB numbers I know he could have taken.It's not a big deal but I'd rather see duplicate numbers be worn by bench warmers.I think most teams try to stagger the duplicate numbers so that two guys in the same class aren't wearing the same number. And I think it's common with QBs just because they usually wear single digit numbers and when defensive players wear "wrong" numbers it's usually in the single digits too. I think USC had two captains wearing 7 when Matt Barkley was there. Martez Wilson wore 2 at Illinois and shared it with the starting QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy with Machete Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 47...like what the hell? The 40s in general don't look good but that one's particularly bad. Man, do I hate 47. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonFromMiami Posted December 12, 2014 Author Share Posted December 12, 2014 47 really does look :censored:ty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mingjai Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 47 is a strange looking number.The Bruins core forwards of recent years have some numbers that look weird to my eyes--specifically linemates Bergeron and Marchand as well as Krejci: Visit my store on REDBUBBLE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FGM13 Posted December 12, 2014 Share Posted December 12, 2014 59 is an ugly number. I don't know why, but it's just wrong. I actually kinda like 47. GO OILERS-GO BLUE JAYS-GO ESKIMOS-GO COLTS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andycumbee19 Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 47...like what the hell? The 40s in general don't look good but that one's particularly bad. Man, do I hate 47.I used to be kinda partial to it, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsfan0518 Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Reebok's stretchy NFL jerseys made the numbers all screwed up from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Most numbers that end in 7 are not atractive. Maybe 97 is the least bad of the X7s. 17 for a Qb reminds me of David Krieg or Steve Deberg. I don't think you'll ever see a dynamic athletic Qb wearing it. It surprises me that WRs wear it, though maybe due to Harold Charmichael. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 I like 27 for hockey players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonFromMiami Posted December 13, 2014 Author Share Posted December 13, 2014 yuck, Bruins with 46, 47, 63-17 and 27 are cool for baseball and hockey imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger77 Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Most numbers that end in 7 are not atractive.Maybe 97 is the least bad of the X7s.17 for a Qb reminds me of David Krieg or Steve Deberg. I don't think you'll ever see a dynamic athletic Qb wearing it. It surprises me that WRs wear it, though maybe due to Harold Charmichael.I don't know, 17 & 77 work for hockey PotD May 11th, 2011looooooogodud: June 7th 2010 - July 5th 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tBBP Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 47 really does look :censored:tyHmm... *Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. || dribbble || Behance || Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GriffinM6 Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 yuck, Bruins with 46, 47, 63-17 and 27 are cool for baseball and hockey imoSee I think 46 looks fine, because I think of Craig Kimbrel. He's made that number acceptable for me because of how bad ass he is. I agree with you on the other numbers though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonFromMiami Posted December 13, 2014 Author Share Posted December 13, 2014 47 really does look :censored:tyHmm...http://ecx.mWkL._SL1500_.jpgBut since there are so many players on a football team, i don´t think any number looks bad on a football jersey, i mean, someones gotta have it right ? It´s more in MLB and NHL i think you notice non aesthetically pleasing numbers.....i am thinking: "couldn't he have picked a nicer number ? " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBubba Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 I'm going to help derail the thread even more. I loved those Capitals uniforms. I even feel that they could hold up pretty well today. They don't look dated to me at all.Exactly, if you didn´t know any better that swooping eagle could be as old as the Hawks logo, it looks just as good as any original 6 logoI really liked that Caps set as well, but even if it stuck around, it would have to have been updated at some point. There plethora of thin strokes on the logo and the really big serifs on the font were both characteristic of '90s designs and could be cleaned up. The shade of blue could be lightened maybe a tad, and I'd remove "Capitals" from the hem. Put it all together and you have one of the best contemporary looks in the league. Nobody cares about your humungous-big signature. PotD: 29/1/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 I'm going to help derail the thread even more. I loved those Capitals uniforms. I even feel that they could hold up pretty well today. They don't look dated to me at all.Exactly, if you didn´t know any better that swooping eagle could be as old as the Hawks logo, it looks just as good as any original 6 logoI really liked that Caps set as well, but even if it stuck around, it would have to have been updated at some point. There plethora of thin strokes on the logo and the really big serifs on the font were both characteristic of '90s designs and could be cleaned up. The shade of blue could be lightened maybe a tad, and I'd remove "Capitals" from the hem. Put it all together and you have one of the best contemporary looks in the league.For some reason they took the wordmark off the stripe on the white jerseys, but left it on the blue jerseys. I guess they thought the road fans needed their name spelled out to know which team they were playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCap Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 I'm going to help derail the thread even more. I loved those Capitals uniforms. I even feel that they could hold up pretty well today. They don't look dated to me at all.Exactly, if you didn´t know any better that swooping eagle could be as old as the Hawks logo, it looks just as good as any original 6 logoI wouldn't go that far. PotD 26/2/12 1/7/15 2020 BASS Spin the Wheel, Make the Deal Regular Season Champion 2021 BASS NFL Pick'em Regular Season Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 I'm not a fan of this number font, but the 7 is the worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Most numbers that end in 7 are not atractive.Maybe 97 is the least bad of the X7s.17 for a Qb reminds me of David Krieg or Steve Deberg. I don't think you'll ever see a dynamic athletic Qb wearing it. It surprises me that WRs wear it, though maybe due to Harold Charmichael.I don't know, 17 & 77 work for hockeyI'm talking about overall aesthetics, not appropriateness in each sport. I just don't think the X7s* are attractive numbers in any context, be it a sports uniform or on a spreadsheet or even on a street sign. *I will give you that 77 is an exception, probably because 7 alone is fine (in my world) so 77 is just two of those. Of all the double numbers, 88 and 11 are the ones j am on the fence with. Depending on the font, it can be too much symmetry. A symmetrical number comprised of two symmetrical numbers. 11 is usually ok though except in cases like the Bears font. It sucks there. 00 sucks in any context, except when it appears numerous times at the end of my paycheck. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2001mark Posted December 14, 2014 Share Posted December 14, 2014 Hockey - 60-69Baseball - double highs 55, 66, 77, 88, 99 meant to look big... baseball isn't about bignessFootball - I hate the number 9 on a QB... just looks sadBasketball - anything between 40 & 99. @2001mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.