DNAsports

NFL Number Changes 2021

Recommended Posts

On 5/3/2021 at 3:58 PM, BltzW said:

I think it would be a good idea to do what Clemson does (did) with Watson. Have a patch that signifies who's number it was originally. I don't know if they still do it, but Michigan had also done something similar to that with Devin Gardner. 

spacer.pngspacer.png

I don’t know about Clemson and #4, but I know #98 holds a special significance to Meatchicken. Gardner definitely wasn’t the first to wear it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

IIRC, this loser said he wanted to wear 24 to "honor Kobe's legacy in Philly and live up to the standard he set" or some nonsense like that.  Guess he's done mourning Kobe.  Maybe now he's honoring Moses Malone or Mark Howe or something.

Kobe's daughter wore 2 though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MCM0313 said:

I don’t know about Clemson and #4, but I know #98 holds a special significance to Meatchicken. Gardner definitely wasn’t the first to wear it. 

On Watson's patch it says "Fuller" who I am assuming was a QB there for a few years. Anything like a patch that says "Player Last Name" and the years they played on the team would probably work out fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BltzW said:

On Watson's patch it says "Fuller" who I am assuming was a QB there for a few years. Anything like a patch that says "Player Last Name" and the years they played on the team would probably work out fine.

Steve Fuller, I’m guessing? Won a ring as McMahon’s backup on the ‘85 Bears. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saints Rookie Numbers-

 

DT Payton Turner 98

RT Landon Young 67

WR Kawaan Baker 14

QB Ian Book 16

CB Paulson Adebo 29

LB Pete Werner 20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did people back in the day complain when a QB wore 60, a HB wore 16, an FB wore 3, and wideouts wore 25 and 21…with a DB wearing 81? Not all on the same team obviously…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ben in LA said:

Did people back in the day complain when a QB wore 60, a HB wore 16, an FB wore 3, and wideouts wore 25 and 21…with a DB wearing 81? Not all on the same team obviously…

No, because in those days, players either played on both sides of the ball, or in the case of Otto Graham, played in the AAFC that had a different number system entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that’s going to bother me is all the single digits being used from non-QB, K, P positions 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, flyersfan said:

 

 

Not gonna lie, after the Penn State mocks, I really grew to love 28 on Oweh. Although I think 99 will look great on a tall, lanky, freakishly fast edge rusher. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, MCM0313 said:

Steve Fuller, I’m guessing? Won a ring as McMahon’s backup on the ‘85 Bears. 

He was an All-American QB at Clemson. He was being scouted by Bill Walsh before the dynasty. And was Dwight Clark's roommate when he infamously picked up the phone and was asked by Coach Walsh if he would catch balls from Fuller. And Dwight's life and the 49ers lives were changed forever.

 

And yes was McMahon's backup in Chicago and helped get them to the 1984 NFC Championship to be kicked in the mouth by who? 49ers and Bill Walsh. And one more, was in the Super Bowl Shuffle video. For Mike and Papa Bear Halas.

 

Sorry. My OCD got the best of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, AndrewMLind said:

Indianapolis Colts wide receiver Parris Campbell is switching from No. 15 to No. 1, though he has no previous ties to that number. Wore No. 21 in college and high school.

https://www.instagram.com/p/COi_VNztaHi/

1 is probably the worst number for a WR or any player to choose. Any established player changing to it is definitely doing it “just because they can” without any real justification. It really only makes sense for incoming rookies like Ja’Maar Chase, Justin Fields, Zach Wilson because it was their number in college.

 

I don’t want to say it’s necessarily lazy of a veteran to switch to 1 now, but it kinda is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cowboys rookie LB Micah Parsons is sticking with 11

spacer.png
 

I’m far from a Cowboys fan and I really like this decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2021 at 3:24 PM, ssj_homeslice said:

No, because in those days, players either played on both sides of the ball, or in the case of Otto Graham, played in the AAFC that had a different number system entirely.

 

 

What was the AAFC system?

 

I'm not THAT upset by the loss of a system that was only there since the 70s.

Share this post


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

Cowboys rookie LB Micah Parsons is sticking with 11

spacer.png
 

I’m far from a Cowboys fan and I really like this decision.

This is awful, there is no need for a linebacker to wear a low number. I associate 11 with cole Beazley a scrawny slot reciever before I ever would a linebacker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, dont care said:

This is awful, there is no need for a linebacker to wear a low number. I associate 11 with cole Beazley a scrawny slot reciever before I ever would a linebacker.

Sure it’s not the greatest choice, but I’d rather have this over a single digit 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DNAsports said:

Sure it’s not the greatest choice, but I’d rather have this over a single digit 

There is no reason for a linebackers number to be that low period. You couldn’t possibly tell me that all the numbers 40-59 and 90’s numbers could possibly be taken. The NFL screwed to pooch on this stupid rule and should have made it to where only exceptions could be made if all other numbers were taken/retired from the approved numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, dont care said:

There is no reason for a linebackers number to be that low period. You couldn’t possibly tell me that all the numbers 40-59 and 90’s numbers could possibly be taken. The NFL screwed to pooch on this stupid rule and should have made it to where only exceptions could be made if all other numbers were taken/retired from the approved numbers.

Personally, I think a position should take up a 30 number slot on available numbers.


For example-

QB/K/P (1-29)

RB (10-39)

WR (10-29, 80-89)

TE (30-49, 80-89)

OL (50-79)

DL (70-99)

LB (30-59)

DB (20-49)

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.