2024 NFL Changes

[burgundy]

26 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

I've said it before, but kickers and punters shouldn't have to wear numbers.

 

Just put the team logo on the front, or an advertisement.

 

"Delay of game on the kicking team, number...  eight-hundred, five-eight-eight, two-three-hundred, Empiiire."

 

[BBTV]

45 minutes ago, burgundy said:

 

"Delay of game on the kicking team, number...  eight-hundred, five-eight-eight, two-three-hundred, Empiiire."

 

“The kick by number BK, have it your way is good.” 
 

Kicker goes to sideline while some minimum-wage ad intern puts a BK crown on him and makes him eat a whopper while the camera is on him. 
 

Just wait till the punter is sponsored by Fleshlight. 
 

But still, they don’t need numbers. 

[tBBP]

11 hours ago, Dynasty said:

 

Sooner or later, they might let QB's wear whatever number they want, even if it's something like 99.

 

Not that I'm advocating for it, but it's a worrying reality.

 

I'll say it again and scream it to the hills: QBs should be allowed any number from 1-50. I'm trying to see that again.... let's get some latter-day Bobby Laynes, Don Hadls, Sammy Baughs out there!

 

Or more of what Teddy Bridgewater was forced into...

 

 

Come on.... it'll be fun!!!

 

 

[Echo]

16 hours ago, JustABallCoach said:

 

 

But how many fire emojis would you give them???

[GhostOfNormMacdonald]

I hope they get white helmets

[BBTV]

5 hours ago, tBBP said:

 

I'll say it again and scream it to the hills: QBs should be allowed any number from 1-50. I'm trying to see that again.... let's get some latter-day Bobby Laynes, Don Hadls, Sammy Baughs out there!

 

Or more of what Teddy Bridgewater was forced into...

 

 

Come on.... it'll be fun!!!

 

 

 

I'm not against change in general, but I'm a proponent of continuity.   I think change and continuity can exist at the same time.

 

Throughout modern NFL history, 7 and 12 have been like the QB numbers, much like 1 and 30-35 were the goalie numbers.

 

There's obviously HOF QBs that didn't wear 7 or 12 (Montana, Manning, et al), but 7 and 12 were still magic (and not Magic Majkowski).  Just like there were always a couple of goalies (Hextall with 27 for example) that were outside of that tradition, but the point still stands.

 

Hockey numbers really started changing once the Russians and other Europeans started entering the league, and admittedly after the shock of seeing 68, 91, etc. wore off, it's no big deal now, but there's really no reason for the NFL to make it hard-to-impossible for new QBs to wear the numbers of legends, and to try and extend the history of success that comes along with those numbers.

[Sec19Row53]

3 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

I'm not against change in general, but I'm a proponent of continuity.   I think change and continuity can exist at the same time.

 

Throughout modern NFL history, 7 and 12 have been like the QB numbers, much like 1 and 30-35 were the goalie numbers.

 

There's obviously HOF QBs that didn't wear 7 or 12 (Montana, Manning, et al), but 7 and 12 were still magic (and not Magic Majkowski).  Just like there were always a couple of goalies (Hextall with 27 for example) that were outside of that tradition, but the point still stands.

 

Hockey numbers really started changing once the Russians and other Europeans started entering the league, and admittedly after the shock of seeing 68, 91, etc. wore off, it's no big deal now, but there's really no reason for the NFL to make it hard-to-impossible for new QBs to wear the numbers of legends, and to try and extend the history of success that comes along with those numbers.

+1 for spelling the name right. BTW - laughing at that, not your post. I agree with your post.

[DCarp1231]

Yeah, I wish QBs got to go into the 20s.

 

Just like I’m of the opinion that defensive linemen should get access to 80-89 again.

[tBBP]

1 hour ago, DCarp1231 said:

Yeah, I wish QBs got to go into the 20s.

 

Just like I’m of the opinion that defensive linemen should get access to 80-89 again.

 

YES.

 

There's several I can list right off the bat, but the first one I think of, THE preeminent DL with an 80-89 jersey number, is this guy:

 

 

(His fellow HoFer linemate Carl Eller wore a number in the 80s, too...81 to be specific.)

[DCarp1231]

6 minutes ago, tBBP said:

 

YES.

 

There's several I can list right off the bat, but the first one I think of, THE preeminent DL with an 80-89 jersey number, is this guy:

 

 

(His fellow HoFer linemate Carl Eller wore a number in the 80s, too...81 to be specific.)

Always thought it was cool seeing Leonard Floyd (Bears, Rams, Bills, 49ers) wearing 84 in college and hoped he could’ve continued it into the NFL

[Haz_Matt]

If they've going to make it like college and anyone can wear whatever numbers they want then maybe they should go full college and allow offensive and defensive guys to wear the same numbers. That's ultimately what it's going to come down to with all the single digits being taken already when a new guy joins the team

[DCarp1231]

7 minutes ago, Haz_Matt said:

If they've going to make it like college and anyone can wear whatever numbers they want then maybe they should go full college and allow offensive and defensive guys to wear the same numbers. That's ultimately what it's going to come down to with all the single digits being taken already when a new guy joins the team

Considering college teams usually roster double the number of players as NFL teams, not likely.

 

The numbers will absolutely have to be amended again at some point, but double numbers won’t be a necessity.

 

Each position group should have access to a set of 30 numbers

 

K/P 20-49

QB 0-29

RB 10-39

WR 0-19, 80-89

TE 0-19, 80-89

OL 50-79

DL 70-99

LB 30-59

DB 20-49

[MCM0313]

1 hour ago, DCarp1231 said:

Considering college teams usually roster double the number of players as NFL teams, not likely.

 

The numbers will absolutely have to be amended again at some point, but double numbers won’t be a necessity.

 

Each position group should have access to a set of 30 numbers

 

K/P 20-49

QB 0-29

RB 10-39

WR 0-19, 80-89

TE 0-19, 80-89

OL 50-79

DL 70-99

LB 30-59

DB 20-49

You hardly ever see them anymore, but I loved RB numbers in the forties. John Riggins with the Indigenous Persons, Stephen Davis with the Persons and the Panthers, Mike Alstott with the Buccaneers…granted, Alstott was a fullback, Riggins was a fullback in a one-back offense, and Davis was a fullback-turned-halfback, but those numbers conveyed size and power to me. 

[HOOVER]

26 minutes ago, MCM0313 said:

You hardly ever see them anymore, but I loved RB numbers in the forties. John Riggins with the Indigenous Persons, Stephen Davis with the Persons and the Panthers, Mike Alstott with the Buccaneers…granted, Alstott was a fullback, Riggins was a fullback in a one-back offense, and Davis was a fullback-turned-halfback, but those numbers conveyed size and power to me. 

40 & 42 are two of the best numbers in football but very underutilized.  I miss power backs.

[HOOVER]

2 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

Considering college teams usually roster double the number of players as NFL teams, not likely.

 

The numbers will absolutely have to be amended again at some point, but double numbers won’t be a necessity.

 

Each position group should have access to a set of 30 numbers

 

K/P 20-49

QB 0-29

RB 10-39

WR 0-19, 80-89

TE 0-19, 80-89

OL 50-79

DL 70-99

LB 30-59

DB 20-49

Agree they need to adjust it again, but I prefer this.

 

K/P:  0-19

QB:  0-19

RB:  0-9, 20-49

WR:  0-19, 80-89

TE:  40-49, 80-89

OL:  50-79

DL:  50-59, 90-99

LB:  0-19, 40-59, 90-99

DB:  0-9, 20-49

 

 

[BBTV]

Sticking to my guns that kickers and punters don't need numbers.

 

In fact, they don't even need to wear team-colored jerseys since they're not allowed to be hit.  They could wear the red jersey, or something wacky like a soccer goalie.

 

There's no numbering system that everyone is going to agree on.  And times have changed, in that many WRs are smaller than ever, and their pads are also smaller, so 89 looks silly on them., unless they're big dudes like CeeDee or AJ Brown.  But some things are sacred and shouldn't be Fd with.  You want college rules? Simple - watch college football and cry like Cody FSU crybabies.  

 

The LB position has changed in a way that many of them are glorified safeties, which is sad, but a fact. And the advent of the Edge position, which is also sad and would make Bruce Smith and Reggie White roll over in their graves (or eventual graves), is a fact and some of these guys are receiver size rather than traditional DL size.

 

So I don't know the right answer - but the current system isn't it. When there' literally zero numbers available for a QB, and there's safeties, DEs, Edges, LBs, RBs, WRs, and CBs all on the same team wearing QB numbers, it's flawed.  I think that not all, but most people would agree with that.

 

Retired numbers don't help either, but they're an inevitability.  Even if they're simply kept out of circulation for 10ish years, it still creates the same issue.  But ain't no way certain numbers could or should be re-worn on certain teams, but the teams need to employ a higher level of scrutiny when it comes to this topic..

 

Eagles have a litany of players that could be going into HOF within the next two years:  Darren Sproles (borderline, arguable whether he's an Eagle or not), Jason Peters (def an Eagle, and def HOF), JasonKelce (duh), Fletcher Cox (borderline, prob not getting in), Lane Johnson (trending towards getting in), and even kicker Jake Elliot, who's on his way to being the second-best kicker ever behind Tucker (not sure how it works for kickers, so he may be on the outside.). In addition to sure-fire team HOF guys like Brandon Graham who is the all-time games-played leader and all-time seasons played leader.  Not a NFL HOFer, but still one of the more significant guys in franchise history..

 

Of those, nobody is wearing 62 again.  the others would probably just be held out for a few seasons.  12 is a weird case in that it's not retired, but Cunningham can essentially choose who wears it (and isn't the type of guy who would care, but it's basically retired.)

 

I think there's some franchises that would consider retiring all of those numbers, but that's not practical.  I think doing just one is fair enough.  And it's hard to argue with the last few that they've done (92, 5, 20), though maybe 5 could have been on a "10-year rule".  

 

Also, 9 is a weird case, because there's literally a statue of Nick Foles and his enormous bulge, and there'd be riots if anyone else wore it - but does two games warrant a retirement?  Even if one was the most significant game in team history and arguably the best single-game performance in SB history?

 

The real answer is for everyone to go back to being two-way players and trim the rosters by half.  I hope that gets run by the NFLPA, who I'm sure would accept it.  Can't see any issues there.

[HOOVER]

@BBTV Lot of good thoughts here.  

I think most teams are shying away from retiring numbers anymore; they may not issue them for awhile, but they're keeping that flexibility by not officially retiring them.  I think teams found out long ago that doing that limits being able to put players in numbers, especially with the increased (offseason & practice squad) roster sizes.  So I do believe we'll see less and less of this being an issue as very few players have their numbers retired going forward.  

Too many players now have access to 0-19, which creates the problem for QBs, Ks and Ps.  This is why I think you've gotta remove some position groups from having the ability to wear them, and I think the obvious players that you remove from being able to wear singles & teens are IDL, LB, and possibly EDGE players, who could have new classification groups all their own:
 

K/P:  0-19

QB:  0-19

RB:  0-9, 20-49 (no RBs should be wearing teens, save these for WRs)

WR:  0-19, 80-89

TE:  40-49, 80-89

LS:  40-79

OL:  50-79

IDL:  50-59, 90-99

EDGE: 40-59, 90-99

LB:  50-59, 90-99

DB:  0-9, 20-49

To do this, the league, especially the NFLPA, would need to clarify position groups and that would relate to defensive system:  if you're a 3-4 DE, you're an IDL; if you're a 4-3 DE, you're an EDGE.  If you're an OLB in either system, you're an EDGE, and if you're an off-ball LB, you're an LB.  

In my breakdown above, there are still too many rostered players fighting over 0-9, but by taking out IDL/EDGE/LBs from the equation, it alleviates the problem somewhat.  Keeping those players out of 10-39 or even 10-49 also frees up more numbers for DBs, who may try to take 0-9 from QBs, Ks, Ps.

This probably makes things way too complicated.  Unfortunately, the NFL had it right a few years ago when they just let WRs wear 10-19.  All they had to do to really fix the system is let them wear 0-9 as well to free up what was becoming a logjam...everything else was perfect.

[BBTV]

One challenge is that theres a lot of ambiguity with position these days, as defenses typically look (to the untrained eye... and even a trained eye requires more training these days) like 11 guys in random spots, as opposed to your old-school 4-3 or 3-4 or nickel.  There's more versatility than ever amongst players, so categorizing them is tough, and in some cases, unfair (especially to players, who for franchise-tag and overall salary purposes, don't want to be categorized into one of the lower-paying positions when they actually play a lot of snaps at a higher-paying one.)

[Silver_Star]

On 3/15/2024 at 9:31 PM, BBTV said:

JFC a defensive end in 0?  If he doesn't get any sacks, that's a joke waiting to happen.  I goddam hate this nonsense.

 

Kenny Two Gloves has NO QB NUMBER TO WEAR because of idiot DEs and LBs choosing 3, 7, 17, and D-backs with 2, etc.

 

There's a UFA with 13 that'll probably not be back, so he'll end up with that.  But it's ridiculous that there's no numbers available for a QB.

 

The punter should be 0, not a DE.  i'll never stop screaming at the clouds.

 

 

 

I saw that. I agree!

[ddub53]

16 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

Considering college teams usually roster double the number of players as NFL teams, not likely.

 

The numbers will absolutely have to be amended again at some point, but double numbers won’t be a necessity.

 

Each position group should have access to a set of 30 numbers

 

K/P 20-49

QB 0-29

RB 10-39

WR 0-19, 80-89

TE 0-19, 80-89

OL 50-79

DL 70-99

LB 30-59

DB 20-49

In college football, it used to be that those wearing "double numbers" were simply walkons who were stood on the sidelines and were at no risk of getting in the game.  Then about 15 years ago (some like Nebraska have been doing it longer) most schools started to give out the same number to two scholarship players because they like the single digit numbers and coaches don't want to risk losing a player who would have to be assigned No. 46 but wants No. 7.