Jump to content

NFL Number Changes 2021


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Cujo said:

 

What a fxcking troll job by the Pack -- drafting "A.Rodgers" and giving him Aaron's college number


Between retired numbers (officially and unofficially) and numbers currently spoken for on the Packers, 7, 8, and 9 were the only single digits available.  I'm gonna guess the new A-Rod wanted a single digit and chose the one that was the most visually similar to what he wore in college (3).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, flyersfan said:

I mean to make a counterargument, these kids have zero restriction on numbers growing up, they can pick a number at age 7 and run with it for their entire lives, they get to the pinnacle and are forced to choose one in a select range because "it's been that way?" I love they have more freedom in number selection.

 

Also think of the very casual fans, if a player can keep their number college to pros... (Oh that #1 from LSU is really good, he's #1 on the Bengals now). Probably helps them out a bit.

 

My experience in middle and high school (mid '90s) was that we followed the pro rules for offense with the exception of receivers wearing teens (but usually their 2nd or 3rd position was QB so that's probably why.)  We had LBs in the 20s and 80s but because their offensive position was FB or TE or something.  My middle school was so strict I had to wear 62 because I was listed as a guard, even though I was a LB and wanted 58, and I wasn't a two-way player and had no chance of getting into a game at guard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

My experience in middle and high school (mid '90s) was that we followed the pro rules for offense with the exception of receivers wearing teens (but usually their 2nd or 3rd position was QB so that's probably why.)  We had LBs in the 20s and 80s but because their offensive position was FB or TE or something.  My middle school was so strict I had to wear 62 because I was listed as a guard, even though I was a LB and wanted 58, and I wasn't a two-way player and had no chance of getting into a game at guard.

I'm sorry, that stinks. We were given free reign until HS (when I stopped playing) but they generally went larger for larger numbers. I floated all over the place but tried to get 31 or 51 everywhere I could, but was stuck with #2 and #10 on size issues some years. I was a utility player pretty much but LB and corner were my go-tos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NicDB said:


Between retired numbers (officially and unofficially) and numbers currently spoken for on the Packers, 7, 8, and 9 were the only single digits available.  I'm gonna guess the new A-Rod wanted a single digit and chose the one that was the most visually similar to what he wore in college (3).

 

I still think that this rule will have some unintended consequences. Will teams issue all of there there low numbers (1-19) if players want them or will need to hold some out of circulation so if a QB or kicker gets hurt during the season they have an available number during the season. It's not such an issue in college since you can have duplicate numbers as long as they are not on the field at the same time, plus changing numbers during the season (or in the game) is not a problem. I would not be surprised if we don't see a QB or kicker this year or next have to take a number 20-99 out of necessity.

 

That's why if you were going to change the number rule just let players wear any number they want. It's kinda dumb to try go halfway with it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

My experience in middle and high school (mid '90s) was that we followed the pro rules for offense with the exception of receivers wearing teens (but usually their 2nd or 3rd position was QB so that's probably why.)  We had LBs in the 20s and 80s but because their offensive position was FB or TE or something.  My middle school was so strict I had to wear 62 because I was listed as a guard, even though I was a LB and wanted 58, and I wasn't a two-way player and had no chance of getting into a game at guard.

In Jr. High, I wore 11 as a FB/TE/3rd string QB due to our coaches being fans of Jim Jensen. A few games into my 8th grade season, I got moved to the o-line due to injures and was normally 75 but they made me switch to 51 for games where I started at center.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's that big of a deal and I am sure we will get use to it, but I'm more for un-retiring jersey numbers so this situation doesn't happen. I'd rather see young players honor the legacy of the players number they are wearing. I think I've read somewhere, when you get your number at Notre Dame, you get a list of players who wore that number before you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, jc... said:

I don't think it's that big of a deal and I am sure we will get use to it, but I'm more for un-retiring jersey numbers so this situation doesn't happen. I'd rather see young players honor the legacy of the players number they are wearing. I think I've read somewhere, when you get your number at Notre Dame, you get a list of players who wore that number before you. 

I second this. They could even give it a cheesy name like “The Legacy Series”

 

For example, there’s no reason for Washington to have these numbers out of circulation without officially retiring them-

 

No. 7- Joe Theismann 

No. 9 – Sonny Jurgensen

No. 21 – Sean Taylor

No. 28 – Darrell Green

No. 42 – Charley Taylor

No. 43 – Larry Brown

No. 44 – John Riggins

No. 65 – Dave Butz

No. 81 – Art Monk

 

The only officially retired numbers are 33 (Sammy Baugh) & 49 (Bobby Mitchell)

 

I guarantee any Washington player would be absolutely ecstatic to wear 21, too. A bunch of players have lobbied for themselves to be able to wear the number, but ownership (or lack there of), has denied every request. Which is honestly one of the dumbest things. There’s a reason why so many players wear it and want to wear it yet the team insist it sits upon an untouchable shrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one year I played football (fourth grade) I was given no. 2. I played Safety and Left Guard. Single Digit on the O-Line!

 

I don't hate the new NFL rule, it's just different, for now. I feel bad for Reggie Bush who wanted to do this 15 years ago and the league said no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, FroznYogurt said:

 

 

This is the moment in history where it all changes. That #2 was slowing him down and now that he's just #3 he's on a HOF path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I am guessing if players snatch most of these up available single digits so be it? What happens to the next crop of rookies coming into the league in (22) and (23) that are gonna want those singles as well not to mention other QBs, Punters and Kickers who are locked into those numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Claystation360 said:

So I am guessing if players snatch most of these up available single digits so be it? What happens to the next crop of rookies coming into the league in (22) and (23) that are gonna want those singles as well not to mention other QBs, Punters and Kickers who are locked into those numbers.


yeah, since 1-19 aren’t reserved anymore, there’s gonna be a lot of star QBs switching teams only to find their number taken by a 3rd-team cornerback - or none of those numbers available at all. 
 

it’s silly to restrict some people to a subset of numbers that are unrestricted to others that can just snatch them all up. 
 

there will be a QB wearing #57 within 5 seasons, and some people that are all for this will all of a sudden hate it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of this new rule and its mainly because it goes against everything I've ever known and I liked the structure behind the old rule. Before, it was relatively easy to determine what position someone is and with the new rules its going to be really weird seeing single digits and teens on defense seeing as I never watch college football. I'm also not a fan of opening up numbers to certain positions and not others, they should've just done away with it completely and let anyone wear any number if they're gonna go this route. I would've rather unretired numbers across the league to open some more up but it is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BBTV said:


yeah, since 1-19 aren’t reserved anymore, there’s gonna be a lot of star QBs switching teams only to find their number taken by a 3rd-team cornerback - or none of those numbers available at all. 
 

it’s silly to restrict some people to a subset of numbers that are unrestricted to others that can just snatch them all up. 
 

there will be a QB wearing #57 within 5 seasons, and some people that are all for this will all of a sudden hate it. 

I'm with you on this. The reason why it works in college is you can share the same number as long as you are not on the field at the same time and of course there are usually over 100 players on a team. I personally think a QB going above #19 doesn't look right. It did in the 1920-60's but not now. As much as I loved Jared Lorenzen at UK, 22 looked weird as a QB. Not for him due to his stature of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AgentColon2 said:

I really wish the rule stated it can only be used if they ran out of eligible numbers. Similar to allowing WRs to branch out from the 80s. This is gonna be some college football nonsense.

Conversely, I’ve never been a huge fan of WRs wearing 80-89. I’d much rather they wear 10-29 (preferably) or 1-19 if it meant it would deter them from the 80s. I’ve always seen 80-89 as TE numbers anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, logos are cool said:

 

I still think that this rule will have some unintended consequences. Will teams issue all of there there low numbers (1-19) if players want them or will need to hold some out of circulation so if a QB or kicker gets hurt during the season they have an available number during the season. It's not such an issue in college since you can have duplicate numbers as long as they are not on the field at the same time, plus changing numbers during the season (or in the game) is not a problem. I would not be surprised if we don't see a QB or kicker this year or next have to take a number 20-99 out of necessity.

 

That's why if you were going to change the number rule just let players wear any number they want. It's kinda dumb to try go halfway with it. 

 

I for one would LOVE to see a QB or kicker wear 99.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DNAsports said:

Conversely, I’ve never been a huge fan of WRs wearing 80-89. I’d much rather they wear 10-29 (preferably) or 1-19 if it meant it would deter them from the 80s. I’ve always seen 80-89 as TE numbers anyway. 


teams generally carry 3 TEs on their roster. No need to reserve 10 numbers just for them.  

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.