Numbers That You Free Associate With Certain Positions

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

3 hours ago, NicDB said:

But to @Ferdinand Cesarano's point.  Here's a pretty famous game featuring two #14 QB's in the prime of their careers.

 

You actually bettered my point by thinking of a Super Bowl quarterback who wore number 14.

 

Also, the shame that I feel for having thought of Richard Todd and not Y.A. Tittle has me wondering whether I deserve to have a Giants logo in my sig.

[MilSox]

You're also not 80-years old. Which is also why you didn't think of Otto Graham.

 

But the fact that we had to dig that deep into the archives to find undeniably successful 14s says something by itself.

 

 

[BBTV]

• Pitchers in single digits bugs me.  Maybe because visually, I look at a pitcher as the 'anchor', implying that he should have a higher number.  Pitchers in the low teens bug me too.  The Phillies have some jabroni pitcher that wears 12, and I hate it.

• Catchers in single digits kinda bugs me too - maybe because the strap of the older chest protectors would go straight through the number, rather than in the middle of two digits.
   
• I'm torn on WRs wearingi 10-19.  On the one hand, they're often smaller players, so wearing low numbers makes sense, but I don't like that when you see the offense line up, there's more than just the QB wearing a number from that set.  It'd be better if QBs were then restricted to single-digits, but that's obviously a bad idea.
   
• In any case, there's some numbers that should just be 'off limits' to WRs - specifically 12 and 14, since 1) they're not "fast" numbers, and 2) they're so associated with QBs.

[leopard88]

22 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

• In any case, there's some numbers that should just be 'off limits' to WRs - specifically 12 and 14, since 1) they're not "fast" numbers, and 2) they're so associated with QBs.

 

The problem with this, speaking as a Ravens fan, is that I associate No. 12 with this guy (who was definitely fast) . . . 

 

 

. . . not this guy.

 

[sc49erfan15]

On 9/15/2019 at 11:51 AM, BringBackTheVet said:

• I'm torn on WRs wearingi 10-19.  On the one hand, they're often smaller players, so wearing low numbers makes sense, but I don't like that when you see the offense line up, there's more than just the QB wearing a number from that set.  It'd be better if QBs were then restricted to single-digits, but that's obviously a bad idea.

 

I'm torn on this as well. It's odd for me to see a QB throw a touchdown to a player with a number lower than his. The rule allowing WRs to wear 10-19 wasn't implemented until about 10 years after I started following football, so it was solidly ingrained for me that WRs wore 80s and nothing else. I'm on board with 10-19 WRs though, just out of necessity.

 

Just because, here's my optimal numbering system:

 

0-9: QB, K, P - no real surprise here, other than I think 0 should be allowed. Similarly, 00-09 if there isn't already someone with that single number. Basically, 03 or 3, but not both. You'd have to be a real oddball to try this, but I like odd, so go for it.

10-19: QB, K, P, WR - like I said, I'm on board with WRs in the teens but it still seems strange. If I were a WR, I'd only wear a number in this range if nothing in the 80s was available. I realize WRs wearing 10-19 was normal before 1973, but this is my opinion.

20-29: RB, DB - Optimally, 20s would be reserved for smaller running backs (no fullbacks) and corners (no safeties). However, because of scheme and formation differences, there really isn't any way to enforce this, just a preference.

30-39: RB, DB - This is a "transition zone" between the 20s and the 40s. Larger running backs and smaller safeties are most appropriately in the 30s.

40-49: RB, DB, TE - Fullbacks and safeties belong in the 40s. Tight ends are also optimally in the 80s, but just like WRs, I understand the need to open up a second set of numbers for them. Tight ends in the 40s are a "last resort" kind of option. I'm not a big fan of linebackers in the 40s - there should be enough 50s and 90s numbers to go around.

50-59: LB, OL - Linebackers first, then offensive linemen. I realize edge rushers are a hybrid DE/LB depending on scheme, but 50s are linebacker numbers, not lineman numbers.

60-69: OL, DL - Offensive and defensive linemen, in that order.

70-79: OL, DL - Same as the 60s.

80-89: WR, TE - As mentioned before, the preferable number options for these positions.

90-99: DL, LB - 90s should be preferred for defensive linemen, with similar concessions for hybrid DE/LB type players depending on scheme. Linebackers in the 90s are preferable to linebackers in the 40s.

 

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

48 minutes ago, sc49erfan15 said:

0-9: QB, K, P - no real surprise here, other than I think 0 should be allowed. Similarly, 00-09 if there isn't already someone with that single number. Basically, 03 or 3, but not both. You'd have to be a real oddball to try this, but I like odd, so go for it.

10-19: QB, K, P, WR - like I said, I'm on board with WRs in the teens but it still seems strange. If I were a WR, I'd only wear a number in this range if nothing in the 80s was available. I realize WRs wearing 10-19 was normal before 1973, but this is my opinion.

20-29: RB, DB - Optimally, 20s would be reserved for smaller running backs (no fullbacks) and corners (no safeties). However, because of scheme and formation differences, there really isn't any way to enforce this, just a preference.

 

I'd like to see quarterbacks allowed to wear numbers in the 20s.

 

 

 

I would even say that I'd prefer to see a quarterback wearing a number in the 20s than wearing a single-digit number, which to me screams kicker/punter.

 

For the guy leading his team down the field, this:

 

 

...looks better than this:

 

[sc49erfan15]

I gotta disagree on QBs in the 20s. Kosar/Flutie/Lorenzen/Shuler (I'm sure there are probably more) wearing those always seemed amateurish to me. Fine for college, high school, and youth football... but professional quarterbacks wear 1-19. That's how I always saw it.

 

Does it make sense? No, but when we're talking about something as arbitrary as uniform numbers, it doesn't always have to.

[Trapper John]

WR's should wear 80's and then if necessary for a few they can roll to 20-25 but not teens... hate the WR's in the teens now... 

[MilSox]

I think I agree with the point that the long, lanky body type that most receivers have makes numbers in the 10s more practical for them. 

Frankly, I find the NFL's number system far too rigid and cumbersome.  I generally prefer how it's done in college, apart from kickers and punters in the 90s, and DLs and LBs in single digits.  If anyone should be limited to single digits, it's the kicking specialists.  In fact, here's my ideal number system.

Kickers and Punters: 1-9
Quarterbacks: 1-19
Running Backs: 1-49
Receivers: 1-49.  80-89 too, for tradition sake.  But I honestly prefer them in lower numbers.
Tight Ends: 30-49, 80-89  But I could live with them in 10-29 too.
Offensive Linesmen: 50-79
Defensive Linesmen and Linebackers: 30-99.  I'd rather see a Willie Davis or Alan Page in the 80s than a wideout.
Defensive Backs: 1-49