Silver_Star Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 I change my mind on my last post. Two defensive players, Fred Dryer and Jack Youngblood wearing both 89 and 85 respectfully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_Star Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 Quarterback, John Hadl wearing #21 3 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 1 hour ago, Silver_Star said: Quarterback, John Hadl wearing #21 Is he wearing Norm VanBrocklin's old pants? Look how faded they are compared to his linemen. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfraser85 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 8 hours ago, HOOVER said: @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. I like this number set, but I have three suggestions: First, I would limit the edge rushers to 50-59 for the low numbers. Since defenses aren't strictly 4-3 or 3-4 anymore, I would have all front seven positions use the same number grouping. A secondary idea would be to steer the off-ball linebackers to the lower numbers since they're the smaller members of that group. Second, I would limit the sub-20 numbers to the "non-contact" positions (QB, P, K). Since those players have special protection, they should have their own set. Finally, I would replace the teens with the 20's for WR. RB and WR have become similar to the EDGE position and having both groups use the 20's makes sense to me because of that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haz_Matt Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 20 hours ago, HOOVER said: 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 You're still going to run out of single digits quickly. K P QB RB WR1 WR2 LB DB That's 80% of them gone not counting backups and assuming only that number of players in those positions select a single digit 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 I think we're going to need a "pointless numbering system outpost" thread to go along with the "pointless realignment outpost". 7 2 Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sec19Row53 Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 22 minutes ago, BBTV said: I think we're going to need a "pointless numbering system outpost" thread to go along with the "pointless realignment outpost". You're not wrong, but much of what we do here is pointless. 4 Quote It's where I sit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tBBP Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 3 hours ago, rfraser85 said: Finally, I would replace the teens with the 20's for WR. RB and WR have become similar to the EDGE position and having both groups use the 20's makes sense to me because of that. Ooh... And depending on how you count him, the last guy to full-time get away with it (unless you count Devin Hester)... I'd be with that, too!!! 5 Quote *Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. || dribbble || Behance || Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old School Fool Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 If we're hijacking this thread with weird numbers then let's not forget about Ty Montgomery and Cordarelle Patterson wearing 80's numbers at running back as of this decade. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCarp1231 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 I actually kinda like seeing K/P wearing 70-79. It feels like such a fun oddity. If I could trade a number set between two position groups, it would absolutely be DEs getting access to 80-89 while WR/TEs only get 0-19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 6 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said: I actually kinda like seeing K/P wearing 70-79. It feels like such a fun oddity. But that actually highlights the problems - it stops being an oddity when it becomes the norm. Jim Jensen and Keyshan Johnson were oddities. Now a good WR in the 80s is the oddity. One thing I do find funny is how over the years as the old rule evolved, 50-99, except 80-89 became ineligible, but they just kinda left the "end" numbers as eligible, even though they were in the middle of that range. Logically, it doesn't make sense to have some range of eligibles in the middle of the larger range of inelligibles. 1 1 Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCarp1231 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 8 minutes ago, BBTV said: But that actually highlights the problems - it stops being an oddity when it becomes the norm. Jim Jensen and Keyshan Johnson were oddities. Now a good WR in the 80s is the oddity. One thing I do find funny is how over the years as the old rule evolved, 50-99, except 80-89 became ineligible, but they just kinda left the "end" numbers as eligible, even though they were in the middle of that range. Logically, it doesn't make sense to have some range of eligibles in the middle of the larger range of inelligibles. We need a new rule for jersey numbers: If a player like a kicker chooses to wear any number outside of 0-19, they have to play at least 50% of snaps at the position that number would normally line up. ”Get ready to learn interior defensive line, buddy.” 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBeltz Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 7 hours ago, Old School Fool said: If we're hijacking this thread with weird numbers then let's not forget about Ty Montgomery and Cordarelle Patterson wearing 80's numbers at running back as of this decade. Cordelle Patterson is technically a WR, he just plays all the positions asked of him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sec19Row53 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 28 minutes ago, WBeltz said: Cordelle Patterson is technically a WR, he just plays all the positions asked of him. Ty Montgomery began his career as a WR, and was allowed to keep that number. Quote It's where I sit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCarp1231 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 Ty Montgomery and Cordarrelle Patterson walked so Taysom Hill could run 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCM0313 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 14 hours ago, tBBP said: Ooh... And depending on how you count him, the last guy to full-time get away with it (unless you count Devin Hester)... I'd be with that, too!!! 8 hours ago, Old School Fool said: If we're hijacking this thread with weird numbers then let's not forget about Ty Montgomery and Cordarelle Patterson wearing 80's numbers at running back as of this decade. Eric Metcalf began his career as a running back. Montgomery and Patterson began theirs as wideouts. I think players who switch positions were generally allowed to keep their old numbers. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBeltz Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 1 hour ago, Sec19Row53 said: Ty Montgomery began his career as a WR, and was allowed to keep that number. I believe there was a rule saying that you could keep your number from a prior position if you played that position for 3 years or something but I don't know at the point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOOVER Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 18 hours ago, tBBP said: Ooh... And depending on how you count him, the last guy to full-time get away with it (unless you count Devin Hester)... I'd be with that, too!!! I'm a Chiefs fan and Skyy Moore is #24 and I cannot stand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sec19Row53 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 15 minutes ago, WBeltz said: I believe there was a rule saying that you could keep your number from a prior position if you played that position for 3 years or something but I don't know at the point No such rule regarding a length of time. Quote It's where I sit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJWalker45 Posted March 18 Share Posted March 18 21 hours ago, Echo said: Is he wearing Norm VanBrocklin's old pants? Look how faded they are compared to his linemen. The front of their pants look faded too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.