NFL Changes 2021

[MDGP]

14 hours ago, Volt said:

There is a numbering system for a reason.  It's amazing that some of the same people who flip out over half a sock not being white, are okay with obliterating a traditional numbering system that helps identify positional players on the field, makes the rules of the game more manageable and enforceable, and facilitates continuing tradition.  

Do the traditional rules even do that though? Outside of o-linemen who have very specific rules about where they can line up and when they can move downfield, there really aren't any rules that would be affected by players wearing different numbers. It would be one thing if there was a rule requiring a quarterback to receive the snap or that a wide receiver couldn't play cornerback, but there aren't any rules like that for non o-linemen. And in modern football we have so many players that don't play just one position, it really doesn't make sense. That's not even that new a phenomenon. Troy Brown spent a whole season playing cornerback, and Devin Hester wore 23 for years as a wide receiver, and there are plenty more examples. I'm willing to bet that in none of those cases did anyone go "Oh no! I can't tell what position they're playing!"

 

Regarding tradition, there's also a long history of not having these rules in the NFL as people have noted above. This really honestly comes down to people whining about how the NFL isn't the NFL they grew up remembering, which can be a valid point, I guess.

[BBTV]

Yeah from a "rules" standpoint, only 'eligible' vs 'ineligible' really matters.  It's not like only players wearing 'end' numbers can line up on the end.

 

I'm completely against the new proposal, but I'm not going to argue that it has anything to do with the rules.  I think that it's great to look back at the history of the game and see that so many great QBs wore 12, or 7, or 14 (for Ken Anderson), and so many HOF receivers wore 80, 81, 82, etc.  I just don't think anyone but a QB should have 12 - certainly not a linebacker.  

 

It's more about the aesthetics and tradition than the 'rules'.

[MDGP]

29 minutes ago, BBTV said:

Yeah from a "rules" standpoint, only 'eligible' vs 'ineligible' really matters.  It's not like only players wearing 'end' numbers can line up on the end.

 

I'm completely against the new proposal, but I'm not going to argue that it has anything to do with the rules.  I think that it's great to look back at the history of the game and see that so many great QBs wore 12, or 7, or 14 (for Ken Anderson), and so many HOF receivers wore 80, 81, 82, etc.  I just don't think anyone but a QB should have 12 - certainly not a linebacker.  

 

It's more about the aesthetics and tradition than the 'rules'.

 

Of course, and not liking something because you don't like it is perfectly reasonable.

 

Although, I personally think that the change in athleticism in players has started making smaller numbers more viable. Obviously, cornerbacks are many times the smallest and quickest players on the field so in my mind it would make sense for them to wear smaller numbers. Meanwhile, we've had 3 edge rushers run a 4.40 or quicker in this year's pro day workouts. If these guys can move like receivers and running backs, I don't have an issue with them wearing those numbers as well.

[MJWalker45]

On 4/5/2021 at 8:22 PM, BBTV said:

 

Even then, ticky-tack 15-yard penalties change games, and the defenders would just trip players that have them beat on balls longer than 15 yards.

 

I'd rather the refs just be good, and not throw a flag when whatever the defender did didn't actually impact the play.

I wish they'd added a sky judge to buzz the refs when targeting occurs, but not surprised to not see it even entertained. 

[MJWalker45]

On 4/7/2021 at 3:08 AM, selgy said:

Just make them clear!

(I will see myself out) 

It's been tried already. I'm sure someone complained it was too shiny and took away from the game. LOL!!!

[DG_ThenNowForever]

4 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

I wish they'd added a sky judge to buzz the refs when targeting occurs, but not surprised to not see it even entertained. 

 

It's a shame we've decided to memory hole the XFL. The sky judge was such a great concept.

[MJWalker45]

8 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

It's a shame we've decided to memory hole the XFL. The sky judge was such a great concept.

That Kansas City Cleveland call alone should have been the impetus to fix plays like that. College can go back and fix it, the XFL could go back and fix it, the AAF could have gone back and fixed it but god forbid the NFL referees fix an obvious call. 

these should never stand simply because the foul wasn't called on the field. Even when the teams could challenge pass interference they were rarely called, if I remember correctly. 

[andrewharrington]

35 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

That Kansas City Cleveland call alone should have been the impetus to fix plays like that. College can go back and fix it, the XFL could go back and fix it, the AAF could have gone back and fixed it but god forbid the NFL referees fix an obvious call. 

these should never stand simply because the foul wasn't called on the field. Even when the teams could challenge pass interference they were rarely called, if I remember correctly. 

Sorenson wasn’t even fined for that hit on Higgins. No discipline whatsoever for the most dangerous play of the playoffs. This is why the NFL isn’t taken seriously when it purports to be genuine about player safety.

 

The team also posted it as a highlight and even called their own guy “Dirty Dan” in the tweet.

[dont care]

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

Yeah from a "rules" standpoint, only 'eligible' vs 'ineligible' really matters.  It's not like only players wearing 'end' numbers can line up on the end.

 

I'm completely against the new proposal, but I'm not going to argue that it has anything to do with the rules.  I think that it's great to look back at the history of the game and see that so many great QBs wore 12, or 7, or 14 (for Ken Anderson), and so many HOF receivers wore 80, 81, 82, etc.  I just don't think anyone but a QB should have 12 - certainly not a linebacker.  

 

It's more about the aesthetics and tradition than the 'rules'.

Also I want to be able to quickly look at a player and identify what position they primarily play. Seeing a guy with thighs as big as my torso with a 20-39 number is a running back. While a skinny guy wearing the same numbers is clearly a DB. And that is about as difficult as it gets. 

[Phillyspecial2018]

On 4/4/2021 at 7:38 PM, Cujo said:

 

It's really not that hard, KC:

- Grey facemask

- Move the tv numbers down

- Remove the AFL patch

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. The “AFL” patch is the Lamar hunt memorial and it’s will never be removed! Even for a throwback 

[tBBP]

Since there's many hockey heads in here far more knowledgeable than I about this: didn't hockey used to have some type of numbering system along this same line, which pretty much was the reason defencemen and goalies wore single digits for so long (despite, in the case of the defencemen, being the biggest players on the ice, strange-looking as that is)? At what point, if someone knows, did the ol' rules get busted and more and decencemen started wearing whatever numbers they wanted (particularly in the 70s, if my memory serves right--which admittedly it probably doesn't)?

[Cujo]

10 minutes ago, Phillyspecial2018 said:

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. The “AFL” patch is the Lamar hunt memorial and it’s will never be removed! Even for a throwback 

 

Lamar Hunt memorial tv numbers aren't going anywhere either!

[MJWalker45]

1 hour ago, tBBP said:

Since there's many hockey heads in here far more knowledgeable than I about this: didn't hockey used to have some type of numbering system along this same line, which pretty much was the reason defencemen and goalies wore single digits for so long (despite, in the case of the defencemen, being the biggest players on the ice, strange-looking as that is)? At what point, if someone knows, did the ol' rules get busted and more and decencemen started wearing whatever numbers they wanted (particularly in the 70s, if my memory serves right--which admittedly it probably doesn't)?

Rugby still does this, which is why there are no names on the back of international uniforms. In fact, if you wanted to order England jerseys with a number other than 1-15 it had to be a multiple of 5 (20-100), for an anniversary year. Pro leagues allow NOB now, but some leagues still stick to the number being determined by position. 

[BBTV]

2 hours ago, tBBP said:

Since there's many hockey heads in here far more knowledgeable than I about this: didn't hockey used to have some type of numbering system along this same line, which pretty much was the reason defencemen and goalies wore single digits for so long (despite, in the case of the defencemen, being the biggest players on the ice, strange-looking as that is)? At what point, if someone knows, did the ol' rules get busted and more and decencemen started wearing whatever numbers they wanted (particularly in the 70s, if my memory serves right--which admittedly it probably doesn't)?

 

I think hockey numbers used to be used to designate which car a player slept in back in the sleeper train days, and the goalies would get the first (#1) and last (#30 something) ones, with the defense being next (single digits).  Not sure exactly why.  I also don't think it's always been the case that the defensemen were among the biggest guys.

[guest23]

43 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

Rugby still does this, which is why there are no names on the back of international uniforms. In fact, if you wanted to order England jerseys with a number other than 1-15 it had to be a multiple of 5 (20-100), for an anniversary year. Pro leagues allow NOB now, but some leagues still stick to the number being determined by position. 

 

The rugby system is rigid but kind of neat. Imagine the starting 22 in the nfl using a number system you could do a position centric numbering system using the first digit.

 

Example:

• QB: 10's
• HB: 20's
• FB: 30's
• TE: 40's
• C : 50's
• G: 60's (odd left/even right)
• T: 70's (odd left/even right)
• SE/FL/WR: 80's (odd left/even right)

Obviously a system this rigid would imply very limited substitution and rather static lineup/formation (impractical with modern gridiron) which is more common in rugby/soccer but kind of an interesting hypothetical.

[Chawls]

3 hours ago, Cujo said:

 

Lamar Hunt memorial tv numbers 

Nominating this for a future conference name in next year’s GTOV. 

[Chawls]

All within the past 5 years or less, it feels like:

• Cleat color doesn’t matter. 
• Sock length doesn’t matter. 
• TV numbers don’t matter
• Position numbers don’t matter. 

All that matters is ,,or . /s 

[VDizzle12]

10 hours ago, QCS said:

Last year they had the neon style to fit Vegas, though clearly that didn't happen as planned. 

 

Wow, good point. I completely forgot about the neon hats. I was thinking about Chicago, Philadelphia, Dallas and Nashville. Didn't even think about Vegas.

[Cujo]

3 hours ago, Chawls said:

All within the past 5 years or less, it feels like:

• Cleat color doesn’t matter

 

This has never mattered.

[crosfam]

Just a few weeks before the draft and no official unveiling by the Bengals?  And no new Cardinals uni this year? The horror...