DNAsports

Players who look BETTER or WORSE after a number change

Recommended Posts

On 11/4/2019 at 4:28 PM, anythinglogos said:

Conversely,  Luka Doncic needs to go back to 7 the moment it becomes available. 77 should be a role player, not a superstar

 

I disagree. Marion Motley would be a superstar today, regardless what number he wore. 

Image result for marion motley

He also looks better in 76 then 36.

Image result for marion motley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2019 at 9:01 PM, TornadoGTS said:

 

You probably already know this but just as a sidenote, he was essentially "grandfathered" in when in Chicago since he started as a CB then transferred to WR, but once you go to a new team those positional number rules kick in. He no doubt would've like to have kept 23 at all those other stops. I would say in that situation, given his status/accomplishments, let him keep 23 as an exclusion to the rules, but obviously that's subjective and would open Pandora's box.

How firm is this rule, if Ty Montgomery stayed a RB with 88 when changing teams from Packers to Ravens to Jets?

Dolphins-Jets-hosting-former-Packers-RB-

usa_today_11950898.0.jpg

usatsi_13369979-e1570668935357.jpg?w=100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, VandyDelphia Mike said:

How firm is this rule, if Ty Montgomery stayed a RB with 88 when changing teams from Packers to Ravens to Jets?

 

 

True, I actually just took a look at the rule book and if you go from one eligible position to another you don't have to change. So disregard my first post, I stand corrected.

 

ARTICLE 2. PLAYERS NUMBERED BY POSITION. All players must wear numerals on their jerseys in accordance with Rule 5, Section 4, Article 3, Item 3. Such numerals must be by playing position, as follows:

(a) quarterbacks, punters, and placekickers: 1–19;

(b) running backs and defensive backs: 20–49;

(c) centers: 50–79;

(d) offensive guards and tackles: 60–79;

(e) wide receivers: 10–19 and 80–89;

(f) tight ends and H-backs: 40–49 and 80–89;

(g) defensive linemen: 50–79 and 90–99;

(h) linebackers: 40–59 and 90–99.

 

If a player changes his position during his playing career in the NFL, and such change moves him from a position as an ineligible pass receiver to that of an eligible pass receiver, or from a position as an eligible pass receiver to that of an ineligible pass receiver, he must be issued an appropriate new jersey numeral. A change in jersey numeral is not required if the change is from an ineligible position to another ineligible position, or from an eligible position to another eligible position, provided that the player has participated at least one season at his position prior to the change.

 

Any request to wear a numeral for a special position not specified above (e.g., H-back) must be made to the Commissioner. During the preseason period when playing rosters are larger, the League will allow duplication and other temporary deviations from the numbering scheme specified above, but the rule must be adhered to for all players during the regular season and postseason. Clubs must make numerals available to adhere to the rule, even if it requires returning to circulation a numeral that has been retired or withheld for other reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TornadoGTS said:

 

True, I actually just took a look at the rule book and if you go from one eligible position to another you don't have to change. So disregard my first post, I stand corrected.

 

ARTICLE 2. PLAYERS NUMBERED BY POSITION. All players must wear numerals on their jerseys in accordance with Rule 5, Section 4, Article 3, Item 3. Such numerals must be by playing position, as follows:

(a) quarterbacks, punters, and placekickers: 1–19;

(b) running backs and defensive backs: 20–49;

(c) centers: 50–79;

(d) offensive guards and tackles: 60–79;

(e) wide receivers: 10–19 and 80–89;

(f) tight ends and H-backs: 40–49 and 80–89;

(g) defensive linemen: 50–79 and 90–99;

(h) linebackers: 40–59 and 90–99.

 

If a player changes his position during his playing career in the NFL, and such change moves him from a position as an ineligible pass receiver to that of an eligible pass receiver, or from a position as an eligible pass receiver to that of an ineligible pass receiver, he must be issued an appropriate new jersey numeral. A change in jersey numeral is not required if the change is from an ineligible position to another ineligible position, or from an eligible position to another eligible position, provided that the player has participated at least one season at his position prior to the change.

 

Any request to wear a numeral for a special position not specified above (e.g., H-back) must be made to the Commissioner. During the preseason period when playing rosters are larger, the League will allow duplication and other temporary deviations from the numbering scheme specified above, but the rule must be adhered to for all players during the regular season and postseason. Clubs must make numerals available to adhere to the rule, even if it requires returning to circulation a numeral that has been retired or withheld for other reasons.

Then by that standard, Hester could've argued that he went from a number that was eligible (23) to an eligible position. He might've been able to win that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what’s the ruling on Taysom Hill? He plays almost every position possible, but is still listed as QB3 on the Saints depth chart.

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2019 at 2:21 PM, NicDB said:

Ahman Green returned to the Packers in 2009 after two injury plagued seasons with the Houston Texans.  By then, his usual #30 had been issued to starting fullback John Kuhn, forcing him to choose another number.  He went with #34, a tribute to his childhood idol Walter Payton. 

spacer.pngspacer.png

While it was odd seeing him break the Packers all-time rushing record in anything but 30, I'm not sure I can argue that he could have chosen something better than 34 given the situation.

 

I noticed Matt Flynn in the background of that photo against the Seahawks. He has a special place in Seahawks history, as he was signed to the Hawks to be their QB of the future replacement for Matt Hasselback. Of course, a relatively-unknown rookie Russell Wilson won the starting job in training camp, and Flynn was bounced out of Seattle pretty quickly.

 

Funny how things work out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DG_Now said:

 

I noticed Matt Flynn in the background of that photo against the Seahawks. He has a special place in Seahawks history, as he was signed to the Hawks to be their QB of the future replacement for Matt Hasselback. Of course, a relatively-unknown rookie Russell Wilson won the starting job in training camp, and Flynn was bounced out of Seattle pretty quickly.

 

Funny how things work out.

 

Interestingly enough, all three of those guys came from the state of Wisconsin prior to heading to Seattle. Hasselbeck was Brett Favre's backup in Green Bay. Flynn was Aaron Rodgers' backup. And Russell Wilson had just finished his final collegiate season at UW Madison.

 

I have a massive soft spot for Matt Flynn. You could concieve of Rodgers, Favre, or Bart Starr being successful anywhere they went. But Matt Flynn seemed to thrive as a Packer and only as a Packer. After Seattle, he went on to be cut by the Raiders, only to be brought back to Green Bay and save their season after Rodgers went down. 

 

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Matt Flynn went on to become a successful head coach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DNAsports said:

So what’s the ruling on Taysom Hill? He plays almost every position possible, but is still listed as QB3 on the Saints depth chart.

spacer.png

QB is an eligible receiver, so no change is needed unless he made a move to an illegible receiver permanently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2019 at 3:47 PM, sc49erfan15 said:

After (finally) watching the Dennis Rodman 30 for 30 last week, I felt like he's a great candidate for this thread.

 

#10 suited Rodman fine in Detroit and San Antonio.

 

9b6b87ac1973f983272137cd4695c4ec.jpg

 

#91 was a perfect choice for Chicago. By then, he'd become the outsized personality that he was and wearing a weird number just made sense.

 

511E8JEMEEL.jpg

 

...but #70 in Dallas and #73 in LA just seemed odd for the sake of being odd.

 

 2ar6uOoazJHHp1k-owoZ3HSHZDglfs6_-XryzYBLPjc.jpg?auto=webp&s=dbbbd2f06fdd3bff55aadda5cff9a13a85ecea32 dennis_rodman.jpg

 

91 > 10 > 70/73.

 

Rodman wore #91 because #10 was retired for Bob Love. 9 +1 = 10

 

BJ Armstrong wore #10 in his first stint with the Bulls. It was retired for Love after he left. When Armstrong returned to the Bulls for a 2nd stint, he had to wear #11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K/P Lui Passaglia was #5 in the BC Lions lineup in 4 decades.  Wearing the number from 1977 to 2000.  The number is retired by the club in his honour.

 

spacer.png        spacer.png  spacer.png

 

It just looks really not right seeing Passaglia wearing #18 in 1976 rookie year.  The iconic #5 an upgrade.

 

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.