NFL 2023 Changes

[CaliforniaGlowin]

Why was 0 not allowed in the first place? Seems like a silly rule.

[Kiltman]

3 hours ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

Why was 0 not allowed in the first place? Seems like a silly rule.

Think it was just an oversight.

 

throwing in the P/K rule adjustment seems like them bending to what was happening around the league of those now premium numbers being occupied by punters and kickers. sucks for some of them because they were able to cash in on guys buying the number from them ha.

 

You’ll have a mainstay grandfathered generation of P/K who stick with their team, then they’ll probably mostly be in the 30s and 40s. Unless they are in their first camp with a new team, in which case they can jump back up to any cut player’s number.

 

I think them going up to the 90s is goofy, but I suppose it just sets the rule at it’s max.

[Kiltman]

9 hours ago, HOOVER said:

Agree.

I don't mind WRs being able to wear single digits or teens, but outside of that, I despise the recent number changes.

Josh Allen in that photo wearing #41 as an EDGE is worse than the DL wearing #52.  

This is what it should be:

0-19:  QB, WR, K, P
20-49:  RB, DB
50-79:  OL, DL, LB
80-89:  WR, TE
90-99:  DL, LB

But hey, we can stuff the kickers & punters into #96 now since no one else wants to wear it, so that Zeke Elliott can wear #15 and DT Jalen Carter can wear his college #88.

Honestly, I feel like in a few years, they'll pull back on this rule.

I think there is a middle ground with some of them, like  LBs basically being in the double digits is a change I was for.

there’s a lineage to it with the sport, I think of like #11 at Penn State, lots of those Bama backers in the 30s. Visually it still looks “right”.

 

As the rules stand now, I’m fine with them essentially bumping the P/Ks down to what will probably be the 30s/40s for most guys. They are a lone player in a prominent position visually speaking. Don’t really need a number system to recognize them. Aside from pro tradition there isn’t much reason to keep it the same.

 

I don’t think teams are going to want to give any of them anything in the 90s. So many teams have retired numbers there and the DL already has a tough time getting numbers they want at the start of their career.

[DCarp1231]

3 hours ago, Kiltman said:

Think it was just an oversight.

 

throwing in the P/K rule adjustment seems like them bending to what was happening around the league of those now premium numbers being occupied by punters and kickers. sucks for some of them because they were able to cash in on guys buying the number from them ha.

 

You’ll have a mainstay grandfathered generation of P/K who stick with their team, then they’ll probably mostly be in the 30s and 40s. Unless they are in their first camp with a new team, in which case they can jump back up to any cut player’s number.

 

I think them going up to the 90s is goofy, but I suppose it just sets the rule at it’s max.

Now you’ll have kickers and punters blowing one year’s salary just to get #6 from a b-tier WR.

 

#kickersarepeopletoo

[TBGKon]

14 hours ago, HOOVER said:

Honestly, I feel like in a few years, they'll pull back on this rule.

I wouldn't get your hopes up.  With now allowing 0 and the kicker/punter rule, its essentially no different than the college football rules.

 

It's really a very minor change to the league.  It's not like they added a 12th eligible player or something odd like that.

[BadSeed84]

https://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2023/3/28/23661068/kelly-green-eagles-jerseys-officially-back-ahead-2023-season-nfl-jeffrey-lurie-philadelphia-buy

 

I guess it wasn't official before? Even though the Eagles themselves announced it before.

[gosioux76]

5 hours ago, Kiltman said:

I think there is a middle ground with some of them, like  LBs basically being in the double digits is a change I was for.

there’s a lineage to it with the sport, I think of like #11 at Penn State, lots of those Bama backers in the 30s. Visually it still looks “right”.

 

As the rules stand now, I’m fine with them essentially bumping the P/Ks down to what will probably be the 30s/40s for most guys. They are a lone player in a prominent position visually speaking. Don’t really need a number system to recognize them. Aside from pro tradition there isn’t much reason to keep it the same.

 

I don’t think teams are going to want to give any of them anything in the 90s. So many teams have retired numbers there and the DL already has a tough time getting numbers they want at the start of their career.

 

So because it's become a standard in college football to give low numbers to linebackers, it should be OK in the pros.  But somehow the longtime practice of giving pro kickers the lowest numbers is worthy of being discarded?  I'm not sure I follow that logic.

 

This is always such an unusual debate, and it quite often breaks along generational lines or whether someone favors college more than pros.

 

I'm a middle-aged fan of pro football who's never cared that much for the college game. I always felt the NFL jersey numbering system gave it a formulated structure that provided an extra layer of information about a player. At first glance,  you could see a player's jersey number and have an idea of that player's role on the team, even if you didn't know who he was. The numbers, therefore, became a symbol of the position as much as the player.

 

This movement to remove that numbering structure plays right into a younger generation's preference for individuality over uniformity. A player will now choose to wear #0 because it will become part of their personal identity and not because it's a signifier of the position they play.

 

There's nothing wrong with that; cultural preferences change with generations. We all just need to adapt. But it's also fair to recognize that we're losing something in the process. As much as the randomized use of numbers has been consistent in college, the more structured system in the NFL made it unique to the pros. It was a symbol that you'd graduated to the next level if a wide receiver had to give up his #7 jersey to choose a number in the 80s. 

 

 

[HOOVER]

52 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

So because it's become a standard in college football to give low numbers to linebackers, it should be OK in the pros.  But somehow the longtime practice of giving pro kickers the lowest numbers is worthy of being discarded?  I'm not sure I follow that logic.

 

This is always such an unusual debate, and it quite often breaks along generational lines or whether someone favors college more than pros.

 

I'm a middle-aged fan of pro football who's never cared that much for the college game. I always felt the NFL jersey numbering system gave it a formulated structure that provided an extra layer of information about a player. At first glance,  you could see a player's jersey number and have an idea of that player's role on the team, even if you didn't know who he was. The numbers, therefore, became a symbol of the position as much as the player.

 

This movement to remove that numbering structure plays right into a younger generation's preference for individuality over uniformity. A player will now choose to wear #0 because it will become part of their personal identity and not because it's a signifier of the position they play.

 

There's nothing wrong with that; cultural preferences change with generations. We all just need to adapt. But it's also fair to recognize that we're losing something in the process. As much as the randomized use of numbers has been consistent in college, the more structured system in the NFL made it unique to the pros. It was a symbol that you'd graduated to the next level if a wide receiver had to give up his #7 jersey to choose a number in the 80s. 

 

 

Yet another traditional norm that’s being erased.  It’s almost like there’s a pattern…

[walkerws]

9 minutes ago, HOOVER said:

Yet another traditional norm that’s being erased.  It’s almost like there’s a pattern…

or, they're going back to the norm before the norm. 

[SportsFan12]

13 hours ago, Pigskin12 said:

The NFL is running out of “cool” things to allow. I thought single digit numbers was stupid. Pretty soon we’ll have dudes running around with fractions and decimals on their backs.

Why so many confused reactions on this? I'm poking fun at these relaxed uniform/jersey number rules. What am I missing?

[Indigo]

2 hours ago, walkerws said:

or, they're going back to the norm before the norm. 

Society operates in cycles. These last 15 years or so have been similar to the 50s/60s/70s, where the younger generation wants change and individuality and the older generation is all up in arms about it. 30 years from now the numbering system may change, because society will change too.

[DCarp1231]

Tee Higgins switching from 85 to 5

 

 

[HOOVER]

34 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

Tee Higgins switching from 85 to 5

 

 

That's a good change for him.  #85 is a hideous receiver number and even harder to make relevant in Cincinnati since Chad Ochocinco laid claim to it, literally.  Good receiver, good number.

[Indigo]

24 minutes ago, HOOVER said:

That's a good change for him.  #85 is a hideous receiver number and even harder to make relevant in Cincinnati since Chad Ochocinco laid claim to it, literally.  Good receiver, good number.

Here's a quote from Higgins himself:

Quote

"I keep seeing on Twitter, 'Ochocinco 2.0,'" Higgins said. "I don't want to be a 2.0. No disrespect to Chad. He's a great receiver, this and that. I just don't want to be a 2.0 for myself, man. I want to be Tee Higgins, 1.0, No. 5."

(https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32220176/cincinnati-bengals-receiver-tee-higgins-change-number-away-85-formerly-worn-chad-johnson)

[Echo]

1 hour ago, DCarp1231 said:

Tee Higgins switching from 85 to 5

 

 

 

Sure, I mean, if you want to live in AJ McCarron's shadow...

[CS85]

15 hours ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

Why was 0 not allowed in the first place? Seems like a silly rule.

 

Probably some legacy automated computer system that would fudge the entire league's tax paperwork or something.

[Kiltman]

7 hours ago, BadSeed84 said:

https://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2023/3/28/23661068/kelly-green-eagles-jerseys-officially-back-ahead-2023-season-nfl-jeffrey-lurie-philadelphia-buy

 

I guess it wasn't official before? Even though the Eagles themselves announced it before.

It was, Lurie just likes to get his flowers over stuff like that.

[Kiltman]

6 hours ago, gosioux76 said:

 

So because it's become a standard in college football to give low numbers to linebackers, it should be OK in the pros.  But somehow the longtime practice of giving pro kickers the lowest numbers is worthy of being discarded?  I'm not sure I follow that logic.

 

This is always such an unusual debate, and it quite often breaks along generational lines or whether someone favors college more than pros.

 

I'm a middle-aged fan of pro football who's never cared that much for the college game. I always felt the NFL jersey numbering system gave it a formulated structure that provided an extra layer of information about a player. At first glance,  you could see a player's jersey number and have an idea of that player's role on the team, even if you didn't know who he was. The numbers, therefore, became a symbol of the position as much as the player.

 

This movement to remove that numbering structure plays right into a younger generation's preference for individuality over uniformity. A player will now choose to wear #0 because it will become part of their personal identity and not because it's a signifier of the position they play.

 

There's nothing wrong with that; cultural preferences change with generations. We all just need to adapt. But it's also fair to recognize that we're losing something in the process. As much as the randomized use of numbers has been consistent in college, the more structured system in the NFL made it unique to the pros. It was a symbol that you'd graduated to the next level if a wide receiver had to give up his #7 jersey to choose a number in the 80s. 

 

 

A fair point, obviously kickers/punters are important. But it’s impossible to deny they are often separated/relegated to the bottom of things. Visually there is a disparity purely on the amount of plays say a Linebacker has a game to the amount of time either specialist is on the field. That, plus it being obvious who they are when they are on the field is why using it as a form of uniformity doesn’t have much need beyond “that’s how it was”, which is what I was saying. 
 

I agree there was a certain something to the old rules. Drafting a guy and wondering what number he’d go with in the range he could chose from was a staple of the post draft week.

 

I think there was room to evolve it more thoughtfully than the “do whatever the hell you want” outcome we basically ended up with. Opening up kicker numbers to me made sense within the old and new rules, could just be personal bias of not really holding onto that one with much care.

[AgentColon2]

Circling back on the zeroes.

Anyone else remember Jack Lambert saying he was offered double zero but didn’t feel worthy of it. Something along those lines. I’m paraphrasing. Trying to find video of that interview.

[Gary]