NFL 2023 Changes

[tBBP]

4 hours ago, CaliforniaGlowin said:

 my favorite uni number

 

 

This means nada to me until we [are allowed to] see this again:

 

 

Let it happen, Shield.

 

4 hours ago, Krudler said:

I really hate how they changed the numbering rules.

 

I find it interesting the NFL is now allowing 0 again 50 years after they outlawed it (the league standardized jersey numbers in 1973). Even then, though, players whose numbers feel outside those bounds were grandfathered, and IIRC three of them actually wore 0 beyond 1973. Anyway, my point is now the pendulum is swinging back the other way, the way things were pre- (and a little bit post-) merger.

 

3 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

But when some big fat defensive tackle has to wear something like 52 because the punter is 97 and kicker is 99, it'll look dumb.

 

I somehow get the sneaking feeling that unless it's another Jason Elam or Adam Vinatieri type, kickers are gonna get, well, kicked down to the bottom of the pecking order in choosing numbers...

 

3 hours ago, BBTV said:

There was no need to change the numbering system at all.  Honestly there wasn't a need to change it for WRs all them years back.  The numbering system added some structure and was an integral part of the aesthetic of the game, and separated it from the unstructured/hap-hazard nature of college football.  Now with all the alt uniforms, alt helmets, and numbering free-for-all, the lines between college and NFL are blurred.

 

While I too definitely liked the structure the position group rules set in place, I'm also not totally against abolishing it, either. That said, if the shield is gonna open up the number rules, it needs to open it up for ALL positions—that includes quarterbacks. To me it ain't any different for them than it is allowing wideouts numbers in the teens, TEs numbers in the 40s, and DLs numbers in the 60s (all prior to the last change).

 

But yeah, lines between CFB and NFL aesthetics are definitely blurred now. I blame Nike  

 

(that was a joke...maybe...)

[ManillaToad]

1 hour ago, DCarp1231 said:

Calvin Ridley is the first current player to opt for 0

 

 

Okay, this is epic

[HOOVER]

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

But when some big fat defensive tackle has to wear something like 52 because the punter is 97 and kicker is 99, it'll look dumb.

 

There was no need to change the numbering system at all.  Honestly there wasn't a need to change it for WRs all them years back.  The numbering system added some structure and was an integral part of the aesthetic of the game, and separated it from the unstructured/hap-hazard nature of college football.  Now with all the alt uniforms, alt helmets, and numbering free-for-all, the lines between college and NFL are blurred.

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.

[HOOVER]

1 hour ago, WSU151 said:

 

The expanded rosters were the reason for the change to the numbering system...so apparently there was a need. 

I don't buy this completely.   Perhaps all teams should unretire those retired player numbers instead of muddying up the game by deregulating number rules.

 

The Chiefs alone have the following numbers retired, offiically or unofficially:

 

No.	Player	Position	Tenure
3	Jan Stenerud	K	1967–1979
16	Len Dawson	QB	1962–1975
18	Emmitt Thomas	CB	1966–1978
28	Abner Haynes	RB	1960–1964
33	Stone Johnson 1 2	RB	1963
36	Mack Lee Hill 2	RB	1964–1965
58	Derrick Thomas 2	LB	1989–1999
63	Willie Lanier	LB	1967–1977
78	Bobby Bell	LB	1963–1974
86	Buck Buchanan	DT	1963–1975

So yeah, I get it, when you're carrying 90 players in the offseason roster it can be tough, and that doesn't leave you any wiggle room when you already have 10 numbers off the board.   

 

You've got to number 53 main roster players, up to 16 practice squad players, and your injured/reserve players for the season, but that's usually only 75-80.   

 

It really shouldn't be a problem with the traditional numbering rules.
 

[4_tattoos]

Weren't defensive tackles always able to wear a number in the 50's? Offensive line too. How is a DT wearing 52 triggering to anybody that's been watching the NFL in the last 40+ years?

[gothedistance]

2 hours ago, BBTV said:

Looks dumb to me.  52 should be a middle linebacker, or a center.  There's always been defensive linemen in the 50s (especially ends that were quasi OLBs... the predecessors of the Edge position) but they were usually the exception rather than the rule.

 

Feel free to "OK boomer" me, but I liked looking at a random player and having a pretty good idea of what position he played or where he belonged on the field.

 

 

Is that what they call a competitive advantage? Sucks for those who got by on that.

 

 

[Cujo]

Quote

NFL approves jersey No. 0

 

It won't be long now...

 

[Dnice]

I thought Randy White was a DT  and he had 54.

[ManillaToad]

1 hour ago, HOOVER said:

I don't buy this completely.   Perhaps all teams should unretire those retired player numbers instead of muddying up the game by deregulating number rules.

 

The Chiefs alone have the following numbers retired, offiically or unofficially:

 

No.	Player	Position	Tenure
3	Jan Stenerud	K	1967–1979
16	Len Dawson	QB	1962–1975
18	Emmitt Thomas	CB	1966–1978
28	Abner Haynes	RB	1960–1964
33	Stone Johnson 1 2	RB	1963
36	Mack Lee Hill 2	RB	1964–1965
58	Derrick Thomas 2	LB	1989–1999
63	Willie Lanier	LB	1967–1977
78	Bobby Bell	LB	1963–1974
86	Buck Buchanan	DT	1963–1975

So yeah, I get it, when you're carrying 90 players in the offseason roster it can be tough, and that doesn't leave you any wiggle room when you already have 10 numbers off the board.   

 

You've got to number 53 main roster players, up to 16 practice squad players, and your injured/reserve players for the season, but that's usually only 75-80.   

 

It really shouldn't be a problem with the traditional numbering rules.
 

 

They should unretire 33 and 36. It's good to honor players who died but there's ways to do it without retiring numbers

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, 4_tattoos said:

Weren't defensive tackles always able to wear a number in the 50's? Offensive line too. How is a DT wearing 52 triggering to anybody that's been watching the NFL in the last 40+ years?

 

Triggering is certainly an exaggeration.  Is it the end of the world?  Of course not.  And there's obviously already been examples of DTs in the 50s.  I just thin it's silly for a kicker or punter to wear a "legacy" number that so many historic players have worn.  Of course that problem exists today when you have kickers wearing numbers like 7 and 12.

 

Maybe a solution is to not require numbers for kickers and punters.  We all now who they are on the field, there's no real benefit to having them wear a number except to look like everyone else.  Since you're not allowed to touch them anyway, make them like soccer goalies and put them in a clashing jersey... or a jersey that just has the team's logo.

 

[ssj_homeslice]

the number 0 is something that I just cannot get behind from an aesthetic point of view, but I guess I'll have to just get used to it

[WSU151]

Man we really need an unveiling soon

[Cujo]

1 minute ago, WSU151 said:

Man we really need a Dicks's sporting goods stock room leak soon

 

Fixed -- because this is how it usually works.

[DCarp1231]

DL should be given access to 80-89 again

[BBTV]

49 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

DL should be given access to 80-89 again

they only had it because that was for “ends” (tight, split) and either expanded to defensive ends too, or inherited since in the 2-way days you had to wear your offensive number (for eligibility reasons) so if a TE played DE he’d have to wear 80s. 

[SportsFan12]

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.

[Echo]

5 minutes 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.

 

Next thing will be to allow players on offense and defense to wear the same number like they do in college. 

[Cujo]

35 minutes ago, Pigskin12 said:

The NFL is running out of “cool” things to allow.

'

The NFL will never get to this level of cool -- which I'd be 100% onboard with.

 

(not pictured 'TEABAGGER')

[ramsjetsthunder]

1 hour 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.

 

Number π would go hard

[CaliforniaGlowin]

1 hour ago, Cujo said:

'

The NFL will never get to this level of cool -- which I'd be 100% onboard with.

 

(not pictured 'TEABAGGER')

Remember what the NFL really stands for...