NFL 2023 Changes

[DCarp1231]

[WBeltz]

7 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

The Cardinals uniforms are a vast improvement over their predecessors.

 

I think what’s throwing a lot of people off is Arizona’s unwillingness to forgo monochrome.

Even if they used contrasting socks on the white a

or red uniforms it would look substantially better. Just gotta break up the clot

[MilSox]

The Packers just announced their opening day roster in an infographic on instagram. Apparently they didn't assign punter Daniel Whelan a new number and are letting him wear #41.

 

I tried to think of another time I saw a punter wear a number higher than 19. I had to go back to the early 80s  when Bob Parsons wore 86 for the Bears in the and with Pat McInaly for the Bengals who wore 87. But IIRC, they were the last of the guys who played other positions and became the defacto punter. Has a true punting specialist ever worn a number that high?

[BBTV]

9 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

The Cardinals uniforms are a vast improvement over their predecessors.

 

I think what’s throwing a lot of people off is Arizona’s unwillingness to forgo monochrome.

 

Getting punched in the gut is better than being punched in the balls, but I'd rather be hugged than punched.  

[fouhy12]

31 minutes ago, MilSox said:

The Packers just announced their opening day roster in an infographic on instagram. Apparently they didn't assign punter Daniel Whelan a new number and are letting him wear #41.

 

I tried to think of another time I saw a punter wear a number higher than 19. I had to go back to the early 80s  when Bob Parsons wore 86 for the Bears in the and with Pat McInaly for the Bengals who wore 87. But IIRC, they were the last of the guys who played other positions and became the defacto punter. Has a true punting specialist ever worn a number that high?

FWIW, the Patriots drafted a punter who wore 99 in college. He has to change his number in the next few weeks and 99 may be available, so he may set a new high score here. 

[Sec19Row53]

49 minutes ago, MilSox said:

The Packers just announced their opening day roster in an infographic on instagram. Apparently they didn't assign punter Daniel Whelan a new number and are letting him wear #41.

 

I tried to think of another time I saw a punter wear a number higher than 19. I had to go back to the early 80s  when Bob Parsons wore 86 for the Bears in the and with Pat McInaly for the Bengals who wore 87. But IIRC, they were the last of the guys who played other positions and became the defacto punter. Has a true punting specialist ever worn a number that high?

Yet is the key word. They haven't assigned him a new number yet.

 

Edit. I predict he is assigned 19.

Edited August 30, 2023 by Sec19Row53
Added thought

[MilSox]

4 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Yet is the key word. They haven't assigned him a new number yet.

 

Edit. I predict he is assigned 19.

 

I'm all for letting receivers and DB's wear 1-19. But the NFL needs to open up the numbers for kickers and punters or there's gonna be problems. Especially for the Packers who have 3, 4, 14, and 15 officially retired. On top of 1, 5, and presumably 12 being unofficially retired.

[Sec19Row53]

3 minutes ago, MilSox said:

 

I'm all for letting receivers and DB's wear 1-19. But the NFL needs to open up the numbers for kickers and punters or there's gonna be problems. Especially for the Packers who have 3, 4, 14, and 15 officially retired. On top of 1, 5, and presumably 12 being unofficially retired.

This is why they needed to limit 0-19, IMO.

 

But you're not wrong.

[HOOVER]

19 minutes ago, MilSox said:

 

I'm all for letting receivers and DB's wear 1-19. But the NFL needs to open up the numbers for kickers and punters or there's gonna be problems. Especially for the Packers who have 3, 4, 14, and 15 officially retired. On top of 1, 5, and presumably 12 being unofficially retired.

DBs should be able to wear 0-9, but not 10-19.

 

DL/LB should not be allowed to wear 0-39.

 

Would solve a lot of numbering issues that were created by these recent rule changes.

 

0-19 need to be for QB/K/P.  That’s at least 4 on each team.  
 

Most teams carry 6 WR and none of them want to wear 80s anymore, so now you’ve got 10 numbers accounted for.

 

RBs, TEs, and DBs are then left to fight over the 10 remaining numbers.  Off the cuff guess is that most teams have at least 1, some more, retired numbers in 0-19.

 

So you have almost every position group on the team except OL fighting over 20 numbers, max.  
 

It wasn’t broken, it didn’t need fixed.  They should have just opened 0-9 for RBs & WRs and called it a day.

[Cujo]

4 minutes ago, HOOVER said:

0-19 need to be for QB/K/P. 

 

Nah fam. Like every other sport, let's let any position year any number.

 

[MCM0313]

17 minutes ago, Cujo said:

 

Nah fam. Like every other sport, let's let any position year any number.

 

Man, I so wish Bridgewater had been able to keep wearing 50. 

[BBTV]

58 minutes ago, HOOVER said:

Would solve a lot of numbering issues that were created by these recent rule changes.

 

you know what else would solve the issues created by the recent changes?  Not having made them in the first place.  

 

Reminds me of the title of the second Hyperbole and a Half book - "Solutions and other problems".

[DCarp1231]

The ol’ “what numbers should each position wear” discussion

 

QB: 0-29

RB: 10-49

TE: 30-49, 80-89

WR: 10-49, 80-89

OL: 50-69

DL: 60-99

LB: 10-59

DB: 10-49

K/P: 0-29

[ramsjetsthunder]

2 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

QB: 0-29

[GriffinM6]

9 hours ago, ramsjetsthunder said:

He's right...

[Sec19Row53]

13 minutes ago, GriffinM6 said:

He's right...

And yet, this isn't the NCAA, so he's not right.

COULD it be done? Sure. Is it needed? No.

[MilSox]

I honestly wouldn't mind the NFL making its system more like the NCAA. The whole reason the NFLPA fought for this is so that more guys can wear their high school/college number into the pros. I don't see anything terribly wrong with that.

 

 

[TrueYankee26]

 

[bbush24]

22 hours ago, MrAstrodome said:

 

I disagree.  White-striped socks and white pants look terrible. 

 

Excuse me?

[Sykotyk]

1 hour ago, MilSox said:

I honestly wouldn't mind the NFL making its system more like the NCAA. The whole reason the NFLPA fought for this is so that more guys can wear their high school/college number into the pros. I don't see anything terribly wrong with that.

 

 

Also, the numbers were a way for fans, in a day before massive high-def replay boards and high-def TVs at home, to quickly determine who was where on the field. You didn't need to know WHO was #38, but when you saw that # you knew "Fullback or Running Back" on offense, etc. either from the stands or from your little, fuzzy 25" rear projection TV that had missing corners.

 

Today, no matter whether you're at a stadium or at home, you get so much info about every single player that if anyone does anything their name and photo pop up, or you see an insanely upclose, HD shot of their face in real time. You don't need to pythagorean theorize your way into knowing who or what they were.

 

But primarily, the numbering system has gotten too convoluted. 1-19 used to just be QB/P/K, where now it includes WRs. 70-79 and 90-99 used to be linemen and linebackers, but then 50-59 is also linebackers, but not linemen.  But 60-69 can be. But 30-39 was mostly fullbacks while 20-29 was mostly halfbacks. And DBs. Safeties got 40-49 and sometimes 20-39. Receivers were 80-89, except tight ends, who many times were also in the 40s.

 

Numbers that used to be consistent became anything but consistent. Overlap, also just ruins it. And with the trend going for more numbers for more players, it's easier to just let anyone wear whatever they want.

 

As for QB/P/K being 1-19, I always assumed it was they were the smallest guys usually with less bulky padding so the smaller numbers fit better on them.

 

And for anyone arguing about other sports, NBA uses all numbers. While college still uses the 0-5, 10-15, 20-25, 30-35, 40-45, and 50-55 designation so refs can hand signal which players were called for a foul (or has that changed?)